On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:56:09AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 10:28 AM > > To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <[email protected]>; Ananyev, > > Konstantin <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > Cc: nd <[email protected]>; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] rwlock: introduce 'try' semantics for > > RD and WR locking > > > > On 2018-12-19 07:37, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > > >> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map > > >> b/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map > > >> index 3fe78260d..8b1593dd8 100644 > > >> --- a/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map > > >> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map > > >> @@ -355,6 +355,8 @@ EXPERIMENTAL { > > >> rte_mp_request_async; > > >> rte_mp_sendmsg; > > >> rte_option_register; > > >> + rte_rwlock_read_trylock; > > >> + rte_rwlock_write_trylock; > > > I do not see the other RW lock APIs in this file. > > > > > > > They, just like those added, are static inline functions, will not > > result in any symbols in any shared objects and thus shouldn't be in any > > version.map file. > > So, are you guys trying to say that there is no need to put these 'trylock' > functions into 'experimental' section? > Konstantin > Anything static inline doesn't have a mapfile entry, so there is no issue there. However, the APIs themselves, since they are new should probably have the __rte_experimental attribute marked on them in the code.
/Bruce
