2015-11-22 18:25, Matthew Hall:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 09:59:30PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > So again I am confused what advantage we got from RTE_NEXT_ABI here, and
> > > how
> > > you have multiple copies of RTE_NEXT_ABI on a single symbol when it is a
> > > binary variable.
> >
>
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 01:13:32AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> If your change is sent upstream, you must rely on the new ABI because the old
> one
> will be removed when your change will be integrated.
> If it is a local change, it depends on which ABI you want to use.
I submitted separately
2015-11-21 19:25, Matthew Hall:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:44:20AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > The new mbuf provides packet type instead of flags.
> > So the processing in this function is changed and the variable name is
> > different to reflect this.
>
> But the data type of the variable
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 09:59:30PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > So again I am confused what advantage we got from RTE_NEXT_ABI here, and
> > how
> > you have multiple copies of RTE_NEXT_ABI on a single symbol when it is a
> > binary variable.
>
> I don't understand what is not clear here.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:44:20AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> The new mbuf provides packet type instead of flags.
> So the processing in this function is changed and the variable name is
> different to reflect this.
But the data type of the variable is the same, and this is an internal
alway
2015-11-21 03:49, Matthew Hall:
> I was trying to rebase my DPDK onto v2.1.0 and I came across some very
> confusing code in examples/l3fwd/main.c .
>
> So... this code used the RTE_NEXT_ABI macros on a change which does not
> appear
> to affect the API... on a function that is marked always_in
I was trying to rebase my DPDK onto v2.1.0 and I came across some very
confusing code in examples/l3fwd/main.c .
So... this code used the RTE_NEXT_ABI macros on a change which does not appear
to affect the API... on a function that is marked always_inline ???
Maybe I missed something but this s
7 matches
Mail list logo