On 4/18/2023 9:25 AM, Sivaprasad Tummala wrote: > A new flag RTE_CPUFLAG_MONITORX is added to rte_cpu_flag_t in > DPDK 23.07 release to support monitorx instruction on EPYC processors. > This results in ABI breakage for legacy apps. > > Signed-off-by: Sivaprasad Tummala <sivaprasad.tumm...@amd.com> > --- > doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > index dcc1ca1696..831713983f 100644 > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > @@ -163,3 +163,6 @@ Deprecation Notices > The new port library API (functions rte_swx_port_*) > will gradually transition from experimental to stable status > starting with DPDK 23.07 release. > + > +* eal/x86: The enum ``rte_cpu_flag_t`` will be extended with a new cpu flag > + ``RTE_CPUFLAG_MONITORX`` to support monitorx instruction on EPYC > processors.
OK to add new CPU flag, Acked-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com> But @David, @Bruce, is it OK to break ABI whenever a new CPU flag is added, should we hide CPU flags better? Or other option can be drop the 'RTE_CPUFLAG_NUMFLAGS' and allow appending new flags to the end although this may lead enum become more messy by time.
