eal: resort symbols in EXPERIMENTAL section
diff mbox series

Message ID 20190405203036.27109-1-stephen@networkplumber.org
State Rejected, archived
Delegated to: Thomas Monjalon
Headers show
Series
  • eal: resort symbols in EXPERIMENTAL section
Related show

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK
ci/Intel-compilation success Compilation OK
ci/intel-Performance-Testing success Performance Testing PASS
ci/mellanox-Performance-Testing success Performance Testing PASS

Commit Message

Stephen Hemminger April 5, 2019, 8:30 p.m. UTC
The symbols in the EXPERIMENTAL were close to alphabetic
order but running sort showed several mistakes.

This has no impact on code, API, ABI or otherwise.
Purely for humans.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
---
 lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map | 36 +++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

Comments

Thomas Monjalon June 14, 2019, 7:39 a.m. UTC | #1
06/04/2019 05:30, Stephen Hemminger:
> The symbols in the EXPERIMENTAL were close to alphabetic
> order but running sort showed several mistakes.
> 
> This has no impact on code, API, ABI or otherwise.
> Purely for humans.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>

I don't think it's worth adding a layer of git history for this sort.
I would prefer to leave it as is.
David Marchand June 14, 2019, 7:44 a.m. UTC | #2
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:39 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:

> 06/04/2019 05:30, Stephen Hemminger:
> > The symbols in the EXPERIMENTAL were close to alphabetic
> > order but running sort showed several mistakes.
> >
> > This has no impact on code, API, ABI or otherwise.
> > Purely for humans.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
>
> I don't think it's worth adding a layer of git history for this sort.
> I would prefer to leave it as is.
>
>
If this is about preferrence, I would prefer we have those symbols sorted
per versions that introduced them ;-).
Much easier to check and see if they are candidates for entering stable ABI.
Ferruh Yigit June 14, 2019, 3:32 p.m. UTC | #3
On 6/14/2019 8:44 AM, David Marchand wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:39 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 
>> 06/04/2019 05:30, Stephen Hemminger:
>>> The symbols in the EXPERIMENTAL were close to alphabetic
>>> order but running sort showed several mistakes.
>>>
>>> This has no impact on code, API, ABI or otherwise.
>>> Purely for humans.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
>>
>> I don't think it's worth adding a layer of git history for this sort.
>> I would prefer to leave it as is.
>>
>>
> If this is about preferrence, I would prefer we have those symbols sorted
> per versions that introduced them ;-).
> Much easier to check and see if they are candidates for entering stable ABI.
> 

Not bad idea, +1 from my side J
David Marchand June 20, 2019, 5:23 p.m. UTC | #4
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:32 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:

> On 6/14/2019 8:44 AM, David Marchand wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:39 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 06/04/2019 05:30, Stephen Hemminger:
> >>> The symbols in the EXPERIMENTAL were close to alphabetic
> >>> order but running sort showed several mistakes.
> >>>
> >>> This has no impact on code, API, ABI or otherwise.
> >>> Purely for humans.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> >>
> >> I don't think it's worth adding a layer of git history for this sort.
> >> I would prefer to leave it as is.
> >>
> >>
> > If this is about preferrence, I would prefer we have those symbols sorted
> > per versions that introduced them ;-).
> > Much easier to check and see if they are candidates for entering stable
> ABI.
> >
>
> Not bad idea, +1 from my side J
>

Here is what it looks like:
https://github.com/david-marchand/dpdk/commit/cab0d75ea6bdc7782566d7aad6718b9f5fa784f7

Comments?
David Marchand July 26, 2019, 1:54 p.m. UTC | #5
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:23 PM David Marchand
<david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:32 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/14/2019 8:44 AM, David Marchand wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:39 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 06/04/2019 05:30, Stephen Hemminger:
>> >>> The symbols in the EXPERIMENTAL were close to alphabetic
>> >>> order but running sort showed several mistakes.
>> >>>
>> >>> This has no impact on code, API, ABI or otherwise.
>> >>> Purely for humans.
>> >>>
>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
>> >>
>> >> I don't think it's worth adding a layer of git history for this sort.
>> >> I would prefer to leave it as is.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > If this is about preferrence, I would prefer we have those symbols sorted
>> > per versions that introduced them ;-).
>> > Much easier to check and see if they are candidates for entering stable ABI.
>> >
>>
>> Not bad idea, +1 from my side J
>
>
> Here is what it looks like:
> https://github.com/david-marchand/dpdk/commit/cab0d75ea6bdc7782566d7aad6718b9f5fa784f7

Sent the patch rebased on master.
https://patchwork.dpdk.org/patch/57172/

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map b/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
index d6e375135ad1..33f2c303a361 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
@@ -277,6 +277,14 @@  EXPERIMENTAL {
 	rte_class_unregister;
 	rte_ctrl_thread_create;
 	rte_delay_us_sleep;
+	rte_devargs_add;
+	rte_devargs_dump;
+	rte_devargs_insert;
+	rte_devargs_next;
+	rte_devargs_parse;
+	rte_devargs_parsef;
+	rte_devargs_remove;
+	rte_devargs_type_count;
 	rte_dev_dma_map;
 	rte_dev_dma_unmap;
 	rte_dev_event_callback_process;
@@ -289,14 +297,6 @@  EXPERIMENTAL {
 	rte_dev_is_probed;
 	rte_dev_iterator_init;
 	rte_dev_iterator_next;
-	rte_devargs_add;
-	rte_devargs_dump;
-	rte_devargs_insert;
-	rte_devargs_next;
-	rte_devargs_parse;
-	rte_devargs_parsef;
-	rte_devargs_remove;
-	rte_devargs_type_count;
 	rte_eal_cleanup;
 	rte_extmem_attach;
 	rte_extmem_detach;
@@ -306,19 +306,19 @@  EXPERIMENTAL {
 	rte_fbarray_destroy;
 	rte_fbarray_detach;
 	rte_fbarray_dump_metadata;
-	rte_fbarray_find_idx;
 	rte_fbarray_find_biggest_free;
 	rte_fbarray_find_biggest_used;
+	rte_fbarray_find_contig_free;
+	rte_fbarray_find_contig_used;
+	rte_fbarray_find_idx;
 	rte_fbarray_find_next_free;
-	rte_fbarray_find_next_used;
 	rte_fbarray_find_next_n_free;
 	rte_fbarray_find_next_n_used;
+	rte_fbarray_find_next_used;
 	rte_fbarray_find_prev_free;
-	rte_fbarray_find_prev_used;
 	rte_fbarray_find_prev_n_free;
 	rte_fbarray_find_prev_n_used;
-	rte_fbarray_find_contig_free;
-	rte_fbarray_find_contig_used;
+	rte_fbarray_find_prev_used;
 	rte_fbarray_find_rev_biggest_free;
 	rte_fbarray_find_rev_biggest_used;
 	rte_fbarray_find_rev_contig_free;
@@ -346,24 +346,24 @@  EXPERIMENTAL {
 	rte_mem_event_callback_register;
 	rte_mem_event_callback_unregister;
 	rte_mem_iova2virt;
-	rte_mem_set_dma_mask;
-	rte_mem_virt2memseg;
-	rte_mem_virt2memseg_list;
 	rte_memseg_contig_walk;
 	rte_memseg_contig_walk_thread_unsafe;
 	rte_memseg_get_fd;
 	rte_memseg_get_fd_offset;
-	rte_memseg_get_fd_thread_unsafe;
 	rte_memseg_get_fd_offset_thread_unsafe;
+	rte_memseg_get_fd_thread_unsafe;
 	rte_memseg_list_walk;
 	rte_memseg_list_walk_thread_unsafe;
 	rte_memseg_walk;
 	rte_memseg_walk_thread_unsafe;
+	rte_mem_set_dma_mask;
+	rte_mem_virt2memseg;
+	rte_mem_virt2memseg_list;
 	rte_mp_action_register;
 	rte_mp_action_unregister;
 	rte_mp_reply;
-	rte_mp_request_sync;
 	rte_mp_request_async;
+	rte_mp_request_sync;
 	rte_mp_sendmsg;
 	rte_option_register;
 	rte_realloc_socket;