[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] add ABI checks

Ananyev, Konstantin konstantin.ananyev at intel.com
Fri Jan 31 00:49:12 CET 2020



> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-bounces at dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 4:00 PM
> To: Anoob Joseph <anoobj at marvell.com>; akhil.goyal at nxp.com; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>;
> nhorman at tuxdriver.com; Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara at intel.com>; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe at intel.com>; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
> <arkadiuszx.kusztal at intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] add ABI checks
> 
> 30/01/2020 14:06, Trahe, Fiona:
> > We were unaware the LIST_END change could constitute an ABI breakage, but can see how it affects the array size when picked up.
> > We're exploring options.
> >
> > I agree with Anoob's point that if we don't allow the LIST_END to be modified, then it means no feature can be implemented without ABI
> breakage.
> > Anyone  object to removing those LIST_END elements - or have a better suggestion? Would have to be in 20.11 I suppose.
> 
> Yes, having max value right after the last value is ridiculous,
> it prevents adding any value.
> In 20.11, we should remove all these *_END and *_MAX from API enums
> and replace them with a separate #define with reasonnable maximums.
> 

I think we'd better avoid public structs that have array of _MAX elems in them.




More information about the dev mailing list