On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 3:04 PM Dodji Seketeli <do...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Btw, I see no way to suppress this (except a global [suppress_type]
> > name = rte_mbuf)...
>
> Right.
>
> To avoid having subsequent changes to that type from being "overly"
> suppressed, maybe do something like:
>
> [suppress_type]
> name = rte_mbuf
> has_size_change = no
> has_data_member = {cacheline0, rearm_data, rx_descriptor_fields1,
> cacheline1}
>
> That way, only size-impacting changes to struct rte_mbuf in its form
> that predates this patch would be suppressed, hopefully.
Do you mean, only changes *not* size-impacting would be suppressed?
This is slightly better than the suppression on the whole rte_mbuf
object, but it won't catch field reordering iiuc.
On the other hand, now that I try reordering fields (to test this
suggestion of yours), I get build failures all over the DPDK tree
because we have many build checks to ensure those fields are at known
locations...
So maybe we can relax and just go with the full suppression.
--
David Marchand
