12/06/2024 03:25, rongwei liu:
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>
> > On 6/7/2024 3:02 PM, Rongwei Liu wrote:
> > > @@ -41,7 +41,10 @@ struct rte_vxlan_hdr {
> > > uint8_t flags; /**< Should be 8 (I flag). */
> > > uint8_t rsvd0[3]; /**< Reserved. */
> > > uint8_t vni[3]; /**< VXLAN identifier. */
> > > - uint8_t rsvd1; /**< Reserved. */
> > > + union {
> > > + uint8_t rsvd1; /**< Reserved. */
> > > + uint8_t last_rsvd; /**< Reserved. */
> > > + };
> > >
> >
> > Is there a plan to remove 'rsvd1' in next ABI break release?
> > We can keep both, but I guess it is not logically necessary to keep it, to
> > prevent
> > bloat by time, we can remove the old one.
> > If decided to remove, sending a 'deprecation.rst' update helps us to
> > remember
> > doing it.
> >
> I think it should. @NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL) @Andrew
> Rybchenko@Ori Kam what do you think?
>From user perspective, there is no benefit in removing an aliased field,
except for simplicity.
The drawback is a potential API compatibility breakage.
We may mark it as deprecated in the comment and plan for removal in a long
time, let's say 25.11?
Is there anyone against removing "rsvd1" in VXLAN header for compatibility
purpose?
