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

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 1/30/2020 11:49 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----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.
> 

That should fix, but we need to wait for 20.11 for the change, and what should
be the new array size?