> On 27/04/2020 10:31, Laatz, Kevin wrote: > > > >> (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 > > right you are either on Fedora 31 or some Ubuntu v19.xx, right?
At the time of making the patch: Ubuntu 18.04 with a manually upgraded libabigail Currently Ubuntu 20.04 (beta). > > > > >> > >>> > >>> 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? > >
