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