Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> writes:
> 02/02/2022 12:44, Ray Kinsella:
>> Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> writes:
>> > On 1/28/2022 12:48 PM, Kalesh A P wrote:
>> >> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
>> >> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
>> >> @@ -3818,6 +3818,24 @@ enum rte_eth_event_type {
>> >> RTE_ETH_EVENT_DESTROY, /**< port is released */
>> >> RTE_ETH_EVENT_IPSEC, /**< IPsec offload related event */
>> >> RTE_ETH_EVENT_FLOW_AGED,/**< New aged-out flows is detected */
>> >> + RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING,
>> >> + /**< port recovering from an error
>> >> + *
>> >> + * PMD detected a FW reset or error condition.
>> >> + * PMD will try to recover from the error.
>> >> + * Data path may be quiesced and Control path operations
>> >> + * may fail at this time.
>> >> + */
>> >> + RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERED,
>> >> + /**< port recovered from an error
>> >> + *
>> >> + * PMD has recovered from the error condition.
>> >> + * Control path and Data path are up now.
>> >> + * PMD re-configures the port to the state prior to the
>> >> error.
>> >> + * Since the device has undergone a reset, flow rules
>> >> + * offloaded prior to reset may be lost and
>> >> + * the application should recreate the rules again.
>> >> + */
>> >> RTE_ETH_EVENT_MAX /**< max value of this enum */
>> >
>> >
>> > Also ABI check complains about 'RTE_ETH_EVENT_MAX' value check, cc'ed more
>> > people
>> > to evaluate if it is a false positive:
>> >
>> >
>> > 1 function with some indirect sub-type change:
>> > [C] 'function int rte_eth_dev_callback_register(uint16_t,
>> > rte_eth_event_type, rte_eth_dev_cb_fn, void*)' at rte_ethdev.c:4637:1 has
>> > some indirect sub-type changes:
>> > parameter 3 of type 'typedef rte_eth_dev_cb_fn' has sub-type changes:
>> > underlying type 'int (typedef uint16_t, enum rte_eth_event_type,
>> > void*, void*)*' changed:
>> > in pointed to type 'function type int (typedef uint16_t, enum
>> > rte_eth_event_type, void*, void*)':
>> > parameter 2 of type 'enum rte_eth_event_type' has sub-type
>> > changes:
>> > type size hasn't changed
>> > 2 enumerator insertions:
>> > 'rte_eth_event_type::RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING' value '11'
>> > 'rte_eth_event_type::RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERED' value '12'
>> > 1 enumerator change:
>> > 'rte_eth_event_type::RTE_ETH_EVENT_MAX' from value '11' to
>> > '13' at rte_ethdev.h:3807:1
>>
>> I don't immediately see the problem that this would cause.
>> There are no array sizes etc dependent on the value of MAX for instance.
>>
>> Looks safe?
>
> We never know how this enum will be used by the application.
> The max value may be used for the size of an event array.
> It looks a real ABI issue unfortunately.
Right - but we only really care about it when an array size based on MAX
is likely to be passed to DPDK, which doesn't apply in this case.
I noted that some Linux folks explicitly mark similar MAX values as not
part of the ABI.
/usr/include/linux/perf_event.h
37: PERF_TYPE_MAX, /* non-ABI */
60: PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX, /* non-ABI */
79: PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MAX, /* non-ABI */
87: PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_OP_MAX, /* non-ABI */
94: PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_RESULT_MAX, /* non-ABI */
116: PERF_COUNT_SW_MAX, /* non-ABI */
149: PERF_SAMPLE_MAX = 1U << 24, /* non-ABI */
151: __PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN_EARLY = 1ULL << 63, /*
non-ABI; internal use */
189: PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX_SHIFT /* non-ABI */
267: PERF_TXN_MAX = (1 << 8), /* non-ABI */
301: PERF_FORMAT_MAX = 1U << 4, /* non-ABI */
1067: PERF_RECORD_MAX, /* non-ABI */
1078: PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL_TYPE_MAX /* non-ABI */
1087: PERF_BPF_EVENT_MAX, /* non-ABI */
>
> PS: I am not Cc'ed in this patchset,
> so copying what I said on v6 (more than a year ago):
> Please use the option --cc-cmd devtools/get-maintainer.sh
--
Regards, Ray K
