From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF7A3DE4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  8 Jul 2015 02:58:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29])
 by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2015 17:58:23 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,427,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="520468805"
Received: from pgsmsx101.gar.corp.intel.com ([10.221.44.78])
 by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2015 17:58:22 -0700
Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.69) by
 PGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com (10.221.44.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:58:17 +0800
Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.129]) by
 SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.46]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002;
 Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:58:16 +0800
From: "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] ethdev: rename rte_eth_vmdq_mirror_conf
Thread-Index: AQHQo0YzdTWZ6+MizUa530+v3dW9rJ2+cpXQgBFJcQCAAS+hAA==
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 00:58:15 +0000
Message-ID: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F8C6370B@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1433492166-30758-1-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com>
 <1433917473-21508-2-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com>
 <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F8C59FF9@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <2821398.avzWtSOKrm@xps13>
In-Reply-To: <2821398.avzWtSOKrm@xps13>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] ethdev: rename
 rte_eth_vmdq_mirror_conf
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:58:25 -0000

Thanks for the clarification.

Jingjing

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:51 PM
> To: Wu, Jingjing
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; nhorman@tuxdriver.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] ethdev: rename
> rte_eth_vmdq_mirror_conf
>=20
> 2015-06-26 07:03, Wu, Jingjing:
> > Hi, Neil
> >
> > About this patch I have an ABI concern about it.
> > This patch just renamed a struct rte_eth_vmdq_mirror_conf to
> > rte_eth_mirror_conf, the size and its elements don't change.
> > As my understanding, it will not break the ABI. And I also tested it.
> > But when I use the script ./scripts/validate-abi.sh to check.
> > A low severity problem is reported in symbol "rte_eth_mirror_rule_set"
> >  - Change: "Base type of 2nd parameter mirror_conf has been changed
> > from struct rte_eth_vmdq_mirror_conf to struct rte_eth_mirror_conf."
> >  - Effect: "Replacement of parameter base type may indicate a change
> > in its semantic meaning."
> >
> > So, I'm not sure whether this patch meet the ABI policy?
>=20
> I think it's OK.
>=20
> > Additional, about the validate-abi.sh, does it mean we need to fix all
> > the problems it reports? Or we can decide case by case.
> > Can a Low Severity problem be acceptable?
>=20
> We have to decide case by case.
> It makes ABI checking impossible to automate.
> That's why any help is welcome to check the git HEAD for ABI violation.