On 1/30/2020 11:49 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon >> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 4:00 PM >> To: Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com>; akhil.go...@nxp.com; Trahe, Fiona >> <fiona.tr...@intel.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>; Trahe, >> Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX >> <arkadiuszx.kusz...@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] add ABI checks >> >> 30/01/2020 14:06, Trahe, Fiona: >>> 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. >> >> Yes, having max value right after the last value is ridiculous, >> it prevents adding any value. >> In 20.11, we should remove all these *_END and *_MAX from API enums >> and replace them with a separate #define with reasonnable maximums. >> > > I think we'd better avoid public structs that have array of _MAX elems in > them. >
That should fix, but we need to wait for 20.11 for the change, and what should be the new array size?
