From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79651A0597; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 12:49:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A992F1C22F; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 12:49:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new1-smtp.messagingengine.com (new1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.221]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B37A11C22A; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 12:49:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2935805D2; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 06:49:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 09 Apr 2020 06:49:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=Gp2UWOaxtiHUuDFqrB8F0wJveMA5F63S3qEoWWrWT04=; b=rnrRoFbqCQaw ctQ8uK7jL2a8zuBwSwETYvq0rwfKShPwpcF0ukmebRQFJ/kTiN8M9BwUh+SsKlWG pyjyVrGyH39AsFMRl3o9bzDVHOdjrIFW52baEXbqyXpdgqqdFwTqjTbeIL3Rjfpl AQgFdI+Mengup6hWg5vLnkvcTE9fJ5Y= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=Gp2UWOaxtiHUuDFqrB8F0wJveMA5F63S3qEoWWrWT 04=; b=HGLFUhjBOQQC8zktCvXggTW2rOI/BnEAC3DLqugQOzZR8aibhjr3pN2g0 x3dVzJAGpjkRQ+GiW/q1H0H0p7VcI/mezYGUIhEJ6zE4VcPYKAQ7WMTH5VhVo1RB Ug4KVnRDYl1wdKa7YwsmM4FVazs7UtXsq4kkDoLdq9wHyodlXuy0h/rNMrQME8me AcoxL9WLKJK0GyCU22q/8CcjUKWGzJjIG6aNiUSCD7+yKMHErLx/hhvZoE2U1rE5 VGhPS3Bkyn3JrEPLzIAuhnm11cJgIKDnVbD1nNcDK64j+ol3k6QIvQnEg/YmpaBS A05dQvICS+gNZKu5O6rm4xB2fI7qg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudelgddvkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucffoh hmrghinhephhhurghrmhdrtghomhdpughpughkrdhorhhgpdhtrhgrvhhishdqtghirdgt ohhmpdhsohhurhgtvgifrghrvgdrohhrghenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrdduke egnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhh ohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B3160306005F; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 06:49:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Gavin Hu Cc: David Marchand , Kevin Traynor , Bruce Richardson , Morten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= , Ferruh Yigit , "dev@dpdk.org" , nd , "jerinj@marvell.com" , Honnappa Nagarahalli , Ruifeng Wang , Phil Yang , Joyce Kong , "stable@dpdk.org" , Olivier MATZ , Konstantin Ananyev , Andrew Rybchenko , nd , mdr@ashroe.eu Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 12:49:44 +0200 Message-ID: <2539459.X9hSmTKtgW@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20200303162728.93744-1-gavin.hu@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] mbuf: replace zero-length marker with unnamed union X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 09/04/2020 11:48, Gavin Hu: > From: David Marchand > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:05 PM Gavin Hu wrote: > > > From: Kevin Traynor > > > > Hi Gavin, I lost track if v2 is still a candidate for merge. fwiw, it > > > > compiles without giving the zero-length-bounds warning on my system. > > > > > > > > Kevin. > > > > > > Yes, this path alone is a candidate for merge. > > > > This patch is not mergeable, it would trigger failures in the ABI checks. > > Isn't it a false failure? If yes, is it ignorable? > > > You can see in patchwork that the robot reported a warning in Travis. > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2020-March/119919.html > > https://travis-ci.com/github/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/295652710#L4476 > > > > > > I opened a bz to libabigail. > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25661 > > > > > > Either a different solution is found, or your patch will have to deal > > with this issue (libabigail fix won't be ready soon afaik) and waive > > this. > > Maybe we come back to 'disable the warning', before the libabigail fix ready? or alternatively ignore this ABI false failure, if it is. > I do not have ideas of what otherwise the options are. Gavin, I did not check this case. But in general, we do not skip checks, except some checkpatch ones. The policy with ABI checks is "NEVER SKIP". We prefer postponing patches, waiting for someone to fix tooling. There is a lack of motivation currently for general concerns. We need to avoid being "write-only" contributors. So two things need to be done: 1/ improve tooling where it needs 2/ review patches from others I published a review list recently: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/announce/2020-April/000315.html