16/01/2018 12:56, Burakov, Anatoly:
> On 12-Jan-18 11:50 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 12/01/2018 12:44, Burakov, Anatoly:
> >> On 11-Jan-18 10:20 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> 22/12/2017 13:41, Anatoly Burakov:
> >>>> During lcore scan, find maximum socket ID and store it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h
> >>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h
> >>>> @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ enum rte_proc_type_t {
> >>>> struct rte_config {
> >>>> uint32_t master_lcore; /**< Id of the master lcore */
> >>>> uint32_t lcore_count; /**< Number of available logical
> >>>> cores. */
> >>>> + uint32_t numa_node_count; /**< Number of detected NUMA
> >>>> nodes. */
> >>>> uint32_t service_lcore_count;/**< Number of available service
> >>>> cores. */
> >>>> enum rte_lcore_role_t lcore_role[RTE_MAX_LCORE]; /**< State of
> >>>> cores. */
> >>>
> >>> isn't it breaking the ABI?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yep, you're right, forgot to add that. I didn't expect this to get
> >> merged in 18.02 anyway, so v2 will follow.
> >
> > Please write 18.05 in the subject to show your expectation.
> > Thanks
> >
>
> Does it have to be an ABI change though? We can put numa_node_count
> after pointer to mem_config, in which case it won't be an ABI break.
> Would that be better?
Changing the size of a struct which is allocated by the app,
is an ABI break.
Is your solution changing the size?
