On 9/30/19 9:42 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 9/30/19 9:29 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> +OLD_VERSION(xsk_umem__create_v0_0_2, xsk_umem__create, LIBBPF_0.0.2)
>> +NEW_VERSION(xsk_umem__create_v0_0_4, xsk_umem__create, LIBBPF_0.0.4)
>
> how this will look when yet another version of this function is
> introduced, say in 0.0.6 ?
>
> OLD_VERSION(xsk_umem__create_v0_0_2, xsk_umem__create, LIBBPF_0.0.2)
> OLD_VERSION(xsk_umem__create_v0_0_4, xsk_umem__create, LIBBPF_0.0.4)
> NEW_VERSION(xsk_umem__create_v0_0_6, xsk_umem__create, LIBBPF_0.0.6)
Yes.
>
> 0.0.4 will be renamed to OLD_ and the latest addition NEW_ ?
Right.
> The macro name feels a bit confusing. May be instead of NEW_
> call it CURRENT_ ? or DEFAULT_ ?
> NEW_ will become not so 'new' few months from now.
Right. After a few months, the version number may indeed be
behind the libbpf versions.... "current" may not be current ....
Let me use DEFAULT then. How about using
COMPAT_VERSION(...)
for old versions, and using
DEFAULT_VERSION(...)
for the new version?
