On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:30 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: > On 1/8/2020 9:55 AM, David Marchand wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 10:09 AM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: > >> Why it is an ABI break, dev_ops should be between library and drivers, so > >> it > >> should be out of the ABI concern, isn't it. > > > > You are right. > > So in our context, this is not an ABI breakage. > > But abidiff still reports it, so maybe some filtering is required to > > avoid this false positive. > > > > Note that if we insert an ops before rx_queue_count, we would have a > > real ABI breakage, as this ops is accessed via an inline wrapper by > > applications. > > > > This is good point, perhaps we should add a comment to that line to highlight > it.
The comment won't help in the CI checks. Not talking about short term, but could we consider separating the inlined ops from the rest (pushing them to rte_eth_dev ?) ? We would then hide completely eth_dev_ops at the next ABI break window. -- David Marchand
