14/04/2021 16:16, Akhil Goyal:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> > 14/04/2021 14:20, gak...@marvell.com:
> > > From: Akhil Goyal <gak...@marvell.com>
> > >
> > > Certain structures are added with reserved fields
> > > to address any future enhancements to retain ABI
> > > compatibility.
> > > However, ABI script will still report error as it
> > > is not aware of reserved fields. Hence, adding a
> > > generic exception for reserved fields.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <gak...@marvell.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > devtools/libabigail.abignore | 4 ++++
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/devtools/libabigail.abignore b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > > index 46a5a6af5..a9d284f76 100644
> > > --- a/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > > +++ b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > > @@ -25,3 +25,7 @@
> > >
> > > [suppress_type]
> > >
> > > name = rte_eventdev
> > > has_data_member_inserted_between = {offset_after(attached), end}
> > >
> > > +
> > > +; Ignore changes in reserved fields
> > > +[suppress_variable]
> > > + name_regexp = reserved
> >
> > If we do that as first patch of this series,
> > we don't need the exception on rte_eventdev, right?
>
> It will still be required, as we have 2 issues
> 1. Reserved_ptr[4] to reserved[3]
> 2. Additional member ca_enqueue added
>
> So we need both.
If this patch is required, it should not be the last one.
