> -----Original Message----- > From: Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 9:07 AM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <[email protected]>; Thomas Monjalon > <[email protected]>; Anoob Joseph > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Trahe, Fiona > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; David Marchand <[email protected]>; Richardson, > Bruce <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>; Kusztal, > ArkadiuszX <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] add ABI checks > > On 1/30/2020 11:49 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: dev <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > >> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 4:00 PM > >> To: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Trahe, Fiona > >> <[email protected]> > >> Cc: [email protected]; David Marchand <[email protected]>; Richardson, > >> Bruce <[email protected]>; > >> [email protected]; Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>; Trahe, > >> Fiona <[email protected]>; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX > >> <[email protected]>; Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]> > >> 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?
Make it dynamic whenever possible? Make Input/output args to provide both pointer and size, or use some predefined value for terminating element (NULL, -1, etc.)?
