15/02/2022 19:51, Singh, Aman Deep: > On 2/11/2022 10:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 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? > > The script will change ETH_SPEED_NUM_xxx macros to RTE_ETH_SPEED_NUM_xxx > as per the requirement.
No there is a misunderstanding. I am asking to filter on ETH_SPEED_NUM instead of ETH_SPEED with exceptions.
