On 06/09, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:15:33 +0800
>Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/09, Olivier Matz wrote:
>> >Hi Xialong,
>> >
>> >On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 01:29:55PM +0800, Xiaolong Ye wrote:
>> >> TAILQ_ENTRY next is not needed in struct mbuf_dynfield_elt and
>> >> mbuf_dynflag_elt, since they are actually chained by rte_tailq_entry's
>> >> next field when calling TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(mbuf_dynfield/dynflag_list, te,
>> >> next).
>> >>
>> >> Fixes: 4958ca3a443a ("mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags")
>> >> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong...@intel.com>
>> >
>> >Good catch, I forgot to remove this field which was used in former
>> >implementations. Thanks!
>> >
>> >I suggest to update the title to highlight it's about dynamic mbuf:
>> > mbuf: remove unused next member in dyn flag/field
>> >
>> >Apart from this:
>> >Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>
>>
>> Thanks for the ack, I'll submit V2 with suggested subject.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Xiaolong
>
>Is the field visible in ABI?
I don't think so, the touched structs in this patch mbuf_dynfield_elt and
mbuf_dynflag_elt are internal structures used in rte_mbuf_dyn.c, and structures
exposed to user are struct rte_mbuf_dynfield and rte_mbuf_dynflag in
rte_mbuf_dyn.h, and they still keep the same as before, so there should be no
ABI break in this patch.
Thanks,
Xiaolong
