11/02/2022 09:07, Singh, Aman Deep: > On 2/10/2022 9:00 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 10/02/2022 14:26, Singh, Aman Deep: > >> On 2/4/2022 1:17 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 04/02/2022 07:13, Singh, Aman Deep: > >>>> Hi Thomas > >>>> > >>>> On 2/3/2022 2:31 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>>> 23/01/2022 18:20, Aman Singh: > >>>>>> Added two specific exceptions for ETH_SPEED_10G > >>>>>> and ETH_SPEED_25G to avoid there name change. > >>>>>> Added check for ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER and ETH_RSS_RETA > >>>>> Please could you explain why? > >>>> These two macro's ETH_SPEED_10G & ETH_SPEED_25G are used by ifpga > >>>> driver and script should no change these. > >>>> There are multiple ETH_SPEED_NUM_xxx macro that need to be changed > >>>> to RTE_ETH_SPEED_NUM_xxx. So added above two as specific exceptions. > >>> Why doing this exception? What is special with ifpga? > >> These two macro's are defined in 'ifpga/base/opae_eth_group.h' > >> we don't intend to change these. Target is ethdev namespace only. > > So we will miss future use of a deprecated macro > > because ifpga is redefining it? > > I think it is a wrong approach. > > We should not make any exception in the check. > > Instead we can just ignore the warning for ifpga. > > Actually ifpga is not redefining these two macro's ETH_SPEED_10G & > ETH_SPEED_25G, > they are unique to it. Only there prefix, matches with ethdev macro's > ETH_SPEED_NUM_xxx, which caused coccinelle script to modify these to > RTE_ETH_SPEED_10G & RTE_ETH_SPEED_25G. So just avoiding it by this change.
Would it work to restrict the match to ETH_SPEED_NUM?
