> -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Yang <phil.y...@arm.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 11:15 AM > To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>; tho...@monjalon.net; > Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; > step...@networkplumber.org; maxime.coque...@redhat.com; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: david.march...@redhat.com; jer...@marvell.com; hemant.agra...@nxp.com; > Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; Gavin Hu > <gavin...@arm.com>; Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>; Joyce Kong > <joyce.k...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>; sta...@dpdk.org; nd <n...@arm.com> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 07/12] service: remove rte prefix from static functions <snip> > > Is this really a "Fix"? The internal function names were not exported > > in the .map file, so are not part of public ABI. This is an internal > > naming improvement (thanks for doing cleanup), but I don't think the > > Fixes: tags make sense? > > > > Also I'm not sure if we want to port this patch back to stable? Changing > > (internal) function names seems like unnecessary churn, and hence risk to a > > stable release, without any benefit? > OK. > I will remove these tags in the next version and split the service core > patches from the original series into a series by itself.
Cool - good idea to split. Perhaps we should focus on getting bugfixes in for the existing code, before doing cleanup? It would make backports easier if churn is minimal. Suggesting patches order (first to last) 1. bugfixes/things to backport 2. cleanups 3. C11 atomic optimizations > Thanks, > Phil Thanks, and I'll get to reading/reviewing your and Honnappa's feedback later today. -H
