> (replying this time to the list) > > On 25/04/2020 17:04, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 16/04/2020 13:00, Kevin Laatz: > >> This patch adds CPU flags which will enable the detection of ISA > >> features available on more recent x86 based CPUs. > > [...] > >> --- a/devtools/libabigail.abignore > >> +++ b/devtools/libabigail.abignore > >> +; Ignore this enum update as it should not be allocated by the > >> +application [suppress_type] > >> + type_kind = enum > >> + name = rte_cpu_flag_t > >> + changed_enumerators = RTE_CPUFLAG_NUMFLAGS > > > > The justification is not correct. > > The application is allowed to use RTE_CPUFLAG_NUMFLAGS in array > allocation. > > But no API is returning a CPU flag, so the new flags will remain > > unknown to the application. > > > > However, there is a behaviour change: > > The functions rte_cpu_get_flag_name() and rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled() > > will now accept new values, which were previously considered as an error. > > Is it an ABI breakage? I would say no. > > We saw something similar with the Cryptodev's rte_crypto_sym_xform_type > also. > Libabigail appears to be particularly sensitive to changes to enumerations. > Leaving it to the user to decide if there is a problem. > > I am seeing a bit of weirdness though between versions of libabigail. > 1.7.1 seems to fine with the change, however 1.2 is reporting an issue. > > Kevin - what version are you using?
I'm using version 1.6.0 > > > > > PS: Who is REALLY maintaining the ABI? > > We really miss someone who carefully check all these things, and take > > care of the doc and tooling. > > > > > > I would say that I am missing these changes to libabigail.ignore, which would > be useful. > Should we consolidate the ABI Policy and ABI Versioning sections of the > MAINTAINERS file?
