25/09/2018 14:22, Luca Boccassi: > On Sun, 2018-09-16 at 11:56 +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 24/08/2018 18:47, Konstantin Ananyev: > > > If user specifies priority=0 for some of ACL rules > > > that can cause rte_acl_classify to return wrong results. > > > The reason is that priority zero is used internally for no-match > > > nodes. > > > See more details at: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79. > > > The simplest way to overcome the issue is just not allow zero > > > to be a valid priority for the rule. > > > > > > Fixes: dc276b5780c2 ("acl: new library") > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > > > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org > > > > Applied with below title, thanks > > acl: forbid rule with priority zero > > Hi, > > This patch is marked for stable, but it changes an enum in a public > header so it looks like an ABI breakage? Have I got it wrong?
- RTE_ACL_MIN_PRIORITY = 0, + RTE_ACL_MIN_PRIORITY = 1, In my understanding, the change is not breaking the ABI because the old minimal value (0) can still be used, with the same side effect. The new value is just removing a side effect for newly compiled apps. Konstantin, am I right?
