On 12/10/2021 10:26, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> 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.
21.11 is an ABI breaking release, so move it where you like :-)
>> I think you can keep as is.
>>
>>
>>
