08/01/2021 15:07, Kinsella, Ray: > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > 08/01/2021 11:43, Ferruh Yigit: > > > On 1/8/2021 10:23 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 08/01/2021 10:22, Ferruh Yigit: > > > >> On 1/7/2021 1:33 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > >>> 07/01/2021 13:47, Zhang, Qi Z: > > > >>>> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > >>>>> 07/01/2021 10:32, Guo, Jia: > > > >>>>>> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > >>>>>>> Sorry, it is a nack. > > > >>>>>>> BTW, it is probably breaking the ABI because of > > RTE_TUNNEL_TYPE_MAX. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Yes that may break the ABI but fortunately the checking-abi- > > compatibility tool shows negative :) , thanks Ferruh' s guide. > > > >>>> https://github.com/ferruhy/dpdk/actions/runs/468859673 > > > >>> > > > >>> That's very strange. An enum value is changed. > > > >>> Why it is not flagged by libabigail? > > > >> > > > >> As long as the enum values not sent to the application and kept > > > >> within the library, changing their values shouldn't be problem. > > > > > > > > But RTE_TUNNEL_TYPE_MAX is part of lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h > > so > > > > it is exposed to the application. > > > > I think it is a case of ABI breakage. > > > > > > Yes it is exposed to the application. But in runtime does it > > exchanged > > > between library and application is the issue I think. > > > For this case it seems it is not, so not an ABI break. > > > > If I create a table of size RTE_TUNNEL_TYPE_MAX with DPDK 20.11, I will > > get an overflow when writing to the new ECPRI index. > > I guess the question is - are you likely to do this?
As said below, no I cannot think about such a case myself. > > The question is: can I receive the ECPRI value dynamically from ethdev? > > If yes, it is an ABI breakage. But I cannot think of such case now.
