On 2/11/2022 10:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 11/02/2022 09:07, Singh, Aman Deep:
>> On 2/10/2022 9:00 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 10/02/2022 14:26, Singh, Aman Deep:
>>>> On 2/4/2022 1:17 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>> 04/02/2022 07:13, Singh, Aman Deep:
>>>>>> Hi Thomas
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/3/2022 2:31 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>>>> 23/01/2022 18:20, Aman Singh:
>>>>>>>> Added two specific exceptions for ETH_SPEED_10G
>>>>>>>> and ETH_SPEED_25G to avoid there name change.
>>>>>>>> Added check for ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER and ETH_RSS_RETA
>>>>>>> Please could you explain why?
>>>>>> These two macro's ETH_SPEED_10G & ETH_SPEED_25G are used by ifpga
>>>>>> driver and script should no change these.
>>>>>> There are multiple ETH_SPEED_NUM_xxx macro that need to be changed
>>>>>> to RTE_ETH_SPEED_NUM_xxx. So added above two as specific exceptions.
>>>>> Why doing this exception? What is special with ifpga?
>>>> These two macro's are defined in 'ifpga/base/opae_eth_group.h'
>>>> we don't intend to change these. Target is ethdev namespace only.
>>> So we will miss future use of a deprecated macro
>>> because ifpga is redefining it?
>>> I think it is a wrong approach.
>>> We should not make any exception in the check.
>>> Instead we can just ignore the warning for ifpga.
>> Actually ifpga is not redefining these two macro's ETH_SPEED_10G & ETH_SPEED_25G,
>> they are unique to it. Only there prefix, matches with ethdev macro's
>> ETH_SPEED_NUM_xxx, which caused coccinelle script to modify these to
>> RTE_ETH_SPEED_10G & RTE_ETH_SPEED_25G. So just avoiding it by this change.
> Would it work to restrict the match to ETH_SPEED_NUM?

The script will change ETH_SPEED_NUM_xxx macros to RTE_ETH_SPEED_NUM_xxx
as per the requirement.

>
>
>