On 7/7/21 10:39 AM, David Marchand wrote: > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 10:36 AM Andrew Rybchenko > <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> wrote: >> >> @David, could you take a look at the ABI breakage warnings for >> the patch. May we ignore it since ABI looks backward >> compatible? Or should be marked as a minor change ABI >> which is backward compatible with DPDK_21? > > The whole eth_dev_shared_data area has always been reset to 0 at the > first port allocation in a dpdk application life. > Subsequent calls to rte_eth_dev_release_port() reset every port > eth_dev->data to 0. > > This bit flag is added in a hole of the structure, and it is > set/manipulated internally of ethdev. > > So unless the application was doing something nasty like highjacking > this empty hole in the structure, I see no problem with the change wrt > ABI. > > > I wonder if libabigail is too strict on this report. > Or maybe there is some extreme consideration on what a compiler could > do about this hole...
I was wondering if it could be any specifics related to big- little endian vs bit fields placement, but throw the idea away... > Dodji? > > > For now, we can waive the warning. > I'll look into the exception rule to add. Thanks a lot. I'll hold on the patch for now.
