06/07/2020 17:32, Phil Yang:
> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > 02/07/2020 07:26, Phil Yang:
> > > --- a/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_timer_adapter.h
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_timer_adapter.h
> > > @@ -467,7 +467,7 @@ struct rte_event_timer {
> > > * - op: RTE_EVENT_OP_NEW
> > > * - event_type: RTE_EVENT_TYPE_TIMER
> > > */
> > > - volatile enum rte_event_timer_state state;
> > > + enum rte_event_timer_state state;
> > > /**< State of the event timer. */
> >
> > Why do you remove the volatile keyword?
> > It is not explained in the commit log.
> By using the C11 atomic operations, it will generate the same instructions
> for non-volatile and volatile version.
> Please check the sample code here: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/8x5rWs
>
> > This change is triggering a warning in the ABI check:
> > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2020-July/140440.html
> > Moving from volatile to non-volatile is probably not an issue.
> > I expect the code generated for the volatile case to work the same
> > in non-volatile case. Do you confirm?
> They generate the same instructions, so either way will work.
> Do I need to revert it to the volatile version?
Either you revert, or you add explanation in the commit log
+ exception in libabigail.abignore
