> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > Sent: Sunday, 18 February 2024 16.22 > > 18/02/2024 14:07, Morten Brørup: > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > > 15/02/2024 07:21, Tyler Retzlaff: > > > > --- a/lib/eal/include/rte_common.h > > > > +++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_common.h > > > > @@ -582,6 +582,12 @@ static void > > > __attribute__((destructor(RTE_PRIO(prio)), used)) func(void) > > > > /** Marker for 8B alignment in a structure. */ > > > > __extension__ typedef uint64_t RTE_MARKER64[0]; > > > > > > > > +#define __rte_marker(type, name) type name /* __rte_deprecated > */ > > > > + > > > > +#else > > > > + > > > > +#define __rte_marker(type, name) > > > > + > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > /*********** Macros for calculating min and max **********/ > > > > diff --git a/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h b/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h > > > > index 5688683..9e9590b 100644 > > > > --- a/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h > > > > +++ b/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h > > > > @@ -16,7 +16,10 @@ > > > > * New fields and flags should fit in the "dynamic space". > > > > */ > > > > > > > > +#include <assert.h> > > > > +#include <stdalign.h> > > > > #include <stdint.h> > > > > +#include <stddef.h> > > > > > > > > #include <rte_byteorder.h> > > > > #include <rte_stdatomic.h> > > > > @@ -464,204 +467,240 @@ enum { > > > > * The generic rte_mbuf, containing a packet mbuf. > > > > */ > > > > struct rte_mbuf { > > > > - RTE_MARKER cacheline0; > > > > - > > > > - void *buf_addr; /**< Virtual address of segment > buffer. > > > */ > > > > + __rte_marker(RTE_MARKER, cacheline0); > > > > > > You don't need to keep the first argument. > > > This would be simpler: > > > __rte_marker(cacheline0); > > > You just need to create 2 functions: __rte_marker and > __rte_marker64. > > > > > > You should replace all occurrences of RTE_MARKER in DPDK in one > patch, > > > and mark RTE_MARKER as deprecated (use #pragma GCC poison) > > > > I like this suggestion. > > However, some applications might use RTE_MARKER in their own > structures. > > Wouldn't it be considered API breakage to mark RTE_MARKER as > deprecated? > > Yes it is an API breakage. > Do we prefer waiting 24.11 for poisoning this macro?
Personally, I generally don't mind API breakages, assuming that they are visible and thus don't silently introduce bugs. The distro people might have a different opinion.
