On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 2:40 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> 12/10/2021 10:47, Jerin Jacob:
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 2:05 PM Kundapura, Ganapati
> > <ganapati.kundap...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
> > > > > --- a/lib/eventdev/rte_event_eth_rx_adapter.h
> > > > > +++ b/lib/eventdev/rte_event_eth_rx_adapter.h
> > > > > @@ -216,6 +216,10 @@ struct rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_stats {
> > > > > /**< Eventdev enqueue count */
> > > > > uint64_t rx_enq_retry;
> > > > > /**< Eventdev enqueue retry count */
> > > > > + uint64_t rx_event_buf_count;
> > > > > + /**< Rx event buffered count */
> > > > > + uint64_t rx_event_buf_size;
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Isn't ABI breakage? CI did not warn this. Isn't this a public structure?
> > > Please confirm if moving the above two members to end of the structure
> > > overcomes ABI breakage?
> >
> >
> > + @Ray Kinsella @Thomas Monjalon @David Marchand
> >
> > It will still break the ABI. IMO, Since it is an ABI breaking release
> > it is OK. If there are no other objections, Please move the variable
> > to end
> > of the structure and update release notes for ABI changes.
>
> Why moving since it breaks ABI anyway?
There is no specific gain in keeping new additions in the middle of structure.
> I think you can keep as is.
>
>
>
