On 9/30/19 9:56 AM, Yonghong Song wrote: > > > 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 COMPAT_VERSION sounds fine. I think OLD_VERSION was ok too. > DEFAULT_VERSION(...) > for the new version? sounds good. Thanks!
