We were unaware the LIST_END change could constitute an ABI breakage, but can see how it affects the array size when picked up. We're exploring options.
I agree with Anoob's point that if we don't allow the LIST_END to be modified, then it means no feature can be implemented without ABI breakage. Anyone object to removing those LIST_END elements - or have a better suggestion? Would have to be in 20.11 I suppose. > -----Original Message----- > From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Anoob Joseph > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 6:10 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; akhil.go...@nxp.com > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>; Richardson, > Bruce > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; nhor...@tuxdriver.com; Mcnamara, John > <john.mcnam...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] add ABI checks > > Hi Thomas, > > The asymmetric crypto library is experimental. Changes to experimental code > paths is allowed, right? > > Also, I was wondering why changing the LIST_END would cause breakage. Before > we introduced the ABI > checks and ABI freeze policy, it was always allowed to add enums to the end. > I'm just trying to > understand the real impact of this case. > > If we don't allow the LIST_END to be modified, then it means no feature can > be implemented in > between. And the best way to overcome that would be to just remove the > LIST_END or set LIST_END to > a very high value. > > Thanks, > Anoob > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 11:13 PM > > To: akhil.go...@nxp.com; Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>; > > bruce.richard...@intel.com; nhor...@tuxdriver.com; John McNamara > > <john.mcnam...@intel.com> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] add ABI checks > > > > Anoob, Akhil, > > > > Please we need to revert or fix the ABI breakages in cryptodev very soon. > > The FIXME section below must be empty. > > > > Thanks > > > > 29/01/2020 18:26, David Marchand: > > > We currently have issues reported for librte_crypto recent changes for > > > which suppression rules have been added too. > > [..] > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/devtools/dpdk.abignore > > > +; FIXME > > > +[suppress_type] > > > + type_kind = enum > > > + name = rte_crypto_aead_algorithm > > > + changed_enumerators = RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_LIST_END > > > +[suppress_type] > > > + type_kind = enum > > > + name = rte_crypto_asym_xform_type > > > + changed_enumerators = RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_TYPE_LIST_END > > > +[suppress_variable] > > > + name = rte_crypto_aead_algorithm_strings > > > > > >
