On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 3:06 PM Kinsella, Ray <m...@ashroe.eu> wrote: > > > > On 03/05/2021 12:18, Akhil Goyal wrote: > > Hi Ray, > >>> @@ -127,6 +127,10 @@ Deprecation Notices > >>> values to the function ``rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_queue_add`` using > >>> the structure ``rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_queue_add``. > >>> > >>> +* eventdev: The function pointer ``ca_enqueue`` in structure > >> ``rte_eventdev`` > >>> + will be moved after ``txa_enqueue`` so that all enqueue/dequeue > >>> + function pointers are adjacent to each other. > >>> + > >>> * sched: To allow more traffic classes, flexible mapping of pipe queues > >>> to > >>> traffic classes, and subport level configuration of pipes and queues > >>> changes will be made to macros, data structures and API functions > >> defined > >>> > >> > >> I admire the disipline - but since you are not actually removing > >> ca_enqueue, > >> just moving it in memory when the new ABI is declared in anycase, this is > >> not > >> required. > >> > > > > Does it mean we can move elements in a structure without giving deprecation > > notice? > > > > well if memory serves - you aren't depreciating the field, just moving it, > right? > And you are aligning the change with an ABI break in anycase - so I think it > is all good.
OK. Change the status of the patch in patchwork as "Not applicable" > > Ray K
