[dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH v10 1/4] devtools: add exception for reserved fields

[Akhil Goyal]

> > > >  ; Ignore fields inserted in cacheline boundary of rte_cryptodev
> > > >  [suppress_type]
> > > >          name = rte_cryptodev
> > > > -        has_data_member_inserted_between = {offset_after(attached),
> end}
> > > > \ No newline at end of file
> > > > +        has_data_member_inserted_between = {offset_after(attached),
> end}
> > > > +
> > > > +; Ignore changes in reserved fields
> > > > +[suppress_variable]
> > > > +       name_regexp = reserved
> > > Mm, this rule is a bit scary, as it matches anything with "reserved" in it.
> >
> > Why do you feel it is scary? Reserved is something which may change at
> any time
> > Just like experimental. Hence creating a generic exception rule for it make
> sense
> > And it is done intentionally in this patch.
> 
> The reserved regexp on the name of a variable / struct field is too lax.
> Anything could be named with reserved in it.
> If we have clear patterns, they must be preferred, like (untested)
> name_regexp = ^reserved_(64|ptr)s$
> 
> 
> Experimental is different.
> This is a symbol version tag, which has a clear meaning and can't be
> used for anything else.
> 
> 
> >
> > >
> > > You need an exception anyway to insert the new fields (like in patch 2).
> > > Can you test your series dropping this patch 1 ?
> > It will not work, as there are 2 changes,
> > 1. addition of ca_enqueue after attached. This is taken care by the
> exception set in patch 2
> > 2. change in the reserved_ptr[4] -> reserved_ptr[3]. For this change we
> need exception for reserved.
> 
> In the eventdev struct, reserved fields are all in the range between
> the attached field and the end of the struct.
> I pushed your series without patch 1 to a branch of mine, and it
> passes the check fine:
> https://github.com/david-marchand/dpdk/runs/2350324578?check_suite_focus=true#step:15:8549> 
> 
Yes it will work, I actually put the new field after reserved and
it was creating issues, so I added it.
But later I decided to move it above reserved fields and missed
that it will work without reserved exception.

Hence we can drop the first patch for now.

Regards,
Akhil