09/04/2020 11:48, Gavin Hu: > From: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:05 PM Gavin Hu <gavin...@arm.com> wrote: > > > From: Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com> > > > > Hi Gavin, I lost track if v2 is still a candidate for merge. fwiw, it > > > > compiles without giving the zero-length-bounds warning on my system. > > > > > > > > Kevin. > > > > > > Yes, this path alone is a candidate for merge. > > > > This patch is not mergeable, it would trigger failures in the ABI checks. > > Isn't it a false failure? If yes, is it ignorable? > > > You can see in patchwork that the robot reported a warning in Travis. > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2020-March/119919.html > > https://travis-ci.com/github/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/295652710#L4476 > > > > > > I opened a bz to libabigail. > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25661 > > > > > > Either a different solution is found, or your patch will have to deal > > with this issue (libabigail fix won't be ready soon afaik) and waive > > this. > > Maybe we come back to 'disable the warning', before the libabigail fix ready? > or alternatively ignore this ABI false failure, if it is. > I do not have ideas of what otherwise the options are.
Gavin, I did not check this case. But in general, we do not skip checks, except some checkpatch ones. The policy with ABI checks is "NEVER SKIP". We prefer postponing patches, waiting for someone to fix tooling. There is a lack of motivation currently for general concerns. We need to avoid being "write-only" contributors. So two things need to be done: 1/ improve tooling where it needs 2/ review patches from others I published a review list recently: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/announce/2020-April/000315.html