07/03/2018 10:05, Burakov, Anatoly: > On 07-Mar-18 8:32 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > Hi, > > > > 06/03/2018 19:28, Arnon Warshavsky: > >> The use case addressed here is dpdk environment init > >> aborting the process due to panic, > >> preventing the calling process from running its own tear-down actions. > > > > Thank you for working on this long standing issue. > > > >> A preferred, though ABI breaking solution would be > >> to have the environment init always return a value > >> rather than abort upon distress. > > > > Yes, it is the preferred solution. > > We should not use exit (panic & co) inside a library. > > It is important enough to break the API. > > +1, panic exists mostly for historical reasons AFAIK. it's a pity i > didn't think of it at the time of submitting the memory hotplug RFC, > because i now hit the same issue with the v1 - we might panic while > holding a lock, and didn't realize that it was an API break to change > this behavior. > > Can this really go into current release without deprecation notices?
If such an exception is done, it must be approved by the technical board. We need to check few criterias: - which functions need to be changed - how the application is impacted - what is the urgency If a panic is removed and the application is not already checking some error code, the execution will continue without considering the error. Some rte_panic could be probably removed without any impact on applications. Some rte_panic could wait for 18.08 with a notice in 18.05. If some rte_panic cannot wait, it must be discussed specifically.