07/07/2021 12:40, David Marchand:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:59 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > This is problematic, as the following rule does not work:
> > >
> > > +; Ignore bitfields added in rte_eth_dev_data hole
> > > +[suppress_type]
> > > +name = rte_eth_dev_data
> > > +has
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:59 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > This is problematic, as the following rule does not work:
> >
> > +; Ignore bitfields added in rte_eth_dev_data hole
> > +[suppress_type]
> > +name = rte_eth_dev_data
> > +has_data_member_inserted_between = {offset_after(lr
07/07/2021 11:36, David Marchand:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:23 AM Andrew Rybchenko
> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/7/21 10:39 AM, David Marchand wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 10:36 AM Andrew Rybchenko
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> @David, could you take a look at the ABI breakage warnings for
> > >> t
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:23 AM Andrew Rybchenko
wrote:
>
> On 7/7/21 10:39 AM, David Marchand wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 10:36 AM Andrew Rybchenko
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> @David, could you take a look at the ABI breakage warnings for
> >> the patch. May we ignore it since ABI looks backward
在 2021/7/7 16:25, Andrew Rybchenko 写道:
On 7/7/21 5:55 AM, Huisong Li wrote:
在 2021/7/6 16:36, Andrew Rybchenko 写道:
@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
On 7/7/21 5:55 AM, Huisong Li wrote:
>
> 在 2021/7/6 16:36, Andrew Rybchenko 写道:
>> @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 DP
On 7/7/21 10:39 AM, David Marchand wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 10:36 AM Andrew Rybchenko
> 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 ba
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 10:36 AM Andrew Rybchenko
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_
在 2021/7/6 16:36, Andrew Rybchenko 写道:
@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?
On 7/6/21 7:10 AM, Huisong Li wrote:
Curr
> Currently, if dev_configure is not called or fails to be called, users
> can still call dev_start successfully. So it is necessary to have a flag
> which indicates whether the device is configured, to control whether
> dev_start can be called and eliminate dependency on user invocation order.
>
@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?
On 7/6/21 7:10 AM, Huisong Li wrote:
> Currently, if dev_configure is not called or f
Currently, if dev_configure is not called or fails to be called, users
can still call dev_start successfully. So it is necessary to have a flag
which indicates whether the device is configured, to control whether
dev_start can be called and eliminate dependency on user invocation order.
The flag s
12 matches
Mail list logo
