[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/7] common/octeontx: enable build only on 64bit Linux

[Jerin Jacob]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 6:17 PM Kinsella, Ray <mdr at ashroe.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 25/03/2021 12:46, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 4:33 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> 25/03/2021 11:58, Kinsella, Ray:
> >>> On 25/03/2021 10:46, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>> 25/03/2021 11:42, Thomas Monjalon:
> >>>>> 24/03/2021 11:55, Jerin Jacob:
> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:33 PM <pbhagavatula at marvell.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula at marvell.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Due to Linux kernel dependency, only enable build for 64bit Linux.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula at marvell.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Series Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj at marvell.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've reorganized the commits per family of drivers,
> >>>>> so it makes more sense than grouping per driver class
> >>>>> with "common/octeontx" for title for all:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> net/thunderx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> >>>>> common/octeontx: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> >>>>> common/octeontx2: enable build only on 64-bit Linux
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and applied.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually not applied yet.
> >>>> I'm not sure what to do for the ABI check which is broken
> >>>> because some drivers are not compiled anymore in 32-bit build.
> >>>> I've workarounded locally by removing the dump files in the reference build.
> >>>> Should we add an exception in libabigail.abignore?
> >>>>
> >>> In the past we said that depreciating HW support would be considered to be same as an ABI Breakage.
> >>>
> >>> From the policy ...
> >>> "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI change."
> >>
> >> So the patches should wait 21.11.
> >> Everybody agree?
> >
> > Looks good to me to postpone.
> >
> > @Ray Kinsella @Thomas Monjalon  @McDaniel, Timothy @David Marchand @Neil Horman
> >
> > Currently, I merged DLB v1 driver removal patch to next-eventdev. Is
> > this ABI breakge[1]?
> >
> > http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210316210812.15614-1-timothy.mcdaniel@intel.com/
> >
> > [1]
> > From the policy ...
> > "Updates to the minimum hardware requirements, which drop support for
> > hardware which was previously supported, should be treated as an ABI
> > change."
>
> +1

Is +1 for not to remove the dlb driver or remove it?