> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 6:50 PM
> To: Gavin Hu <[email protected]>
> Cc: David Marchand <[email protected]>; Kevin Traynor
> <[email protected]>; Bruce Richardson <[email protected]>;
> Morten Brørup <[email protected]>; Ferruh Yigit
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; nd <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <[email protected]>; Ruifeng Wang
> <[email protected]>; Phil Yang <[email protected]>; Joyce Kong
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Olivier MATZ
> <[email protected]>; Konstantin Ananyev
> <[email protected]>; Andrew Rybchenko
> <[email protected]>; nd <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mbuf: replace zero-length
> marker with unnamed union
>
> 09/04/2020 11:48, Gavin Hu:
> > From: David Marchand <[email protected]>
> > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:05 PM Gavin Hu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > From: Kevin Traynor <[email protected]>
> > > > > 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.
Ok, I am fine with this.
> 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
Thanks!
>
