Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] more replacement of zero length array

[Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 11:14:27AM +0100, David Marchand wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 8:36 AM David Marchand
> <david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > I'm okay with the change being merged but if there is concern I can drop
> > > this patch from the series.
> >
> > At least, we can't merge it in the current form.
> >
> > If libabigail gets a fix quickly, DPDK CI will still need a released version.
> > So for this patch to be merged now, we need a libabigail suppression rule.
> > I don't see a way to precisely waive this issue, so my suggestion is
> > to silence any change on the concerned structure here (which should be
> > ok, as the pipeline library data struct have been super stable for a
> > couple of years).
> > Something like:
> >
> > $ git diff
> > diff --git a/devtools/libabigail.abignore b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > index 21b8cd6113..d667157909 100644
> > --- a/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > +++ b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > @@ -33,3 +33,5 @@
> >  ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> >  ; Temporary exceptions till next major ABI version ;
> >  ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> > +[suppress_type]
> > +       name = rte_pipeline_table_entry
> 
> Dodji confirmed the issue in libabigail and prepared a fix.
> 
> DPDK still needs a suppression rule (like the one proposed above) if
> we want to merge this change before the libabigail fix makes it to all
> distribs.
> Please resubmit this series with my proposal and a comment pointing at
> libabigail bz squashed in patch 4.

this works out conveniently, i noticed there are a few more instances
that i'll try to add to this series so i'll come back with a new rev.

i've marked the series changes requested in patchwork for now.

> 
> 
> -- 
> David Marchand