[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170221.171447.918145585590016034.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:14:47 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: tom@...bertland.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 8/8] xdp: Cleanup after API changes
From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 13:24:43 -0800
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 1:06 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
>> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:34:17 -0800
>>
>>> - Change trace_xdp_hook_exception to trace_xdp_exception
>>
>> Just give it this final name in patch #1 where you introduce it.
>
> That will break compilation of the intervening patches. That is okay?
The trace hook doesn't even exist until patch #1, so yes if you name it
properly from the start any references you have to it within followon
patches need to be adjusted as well.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists