Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] add ABI checks

["Trahe, Fiona" <fiona.trahe@intel.com>]

We were unaware the LIST_END change could constitute an ABI breakage, but can see how it affects the array size when picked up.
We're exploring options.

I agree with Anoob's point that if we don't allow the LIST_END to be modified, then it means no feature can be implemented without ABI breakage.
Anyone  object to removing those LIST_END elements - or have a better suggestion? Would have to be in 20.11 I suppose.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Anoob Joseph
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 6:10 PM
> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; akhil.goyal@nxp.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; nhorman@tuxdriver.com; Mcnamara, John
> <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] add ABI checks
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> The asymmetric crypto library is experimental. Changes to experimental code paths is allowed, right?
> 
> Also, I was wondering why changing the LIST_END would cause breakage. Before we introduced the ABI
> checks and ABI freeze policy, it was always allowed to add enums to the end. I'm just trying to
> understand the real impact of this case.
> 
> If we don't allow the LIST_END to be modified, then it means no feature can be implemented in
> between. And the best way to overcome that would be to just remove the LIST_END or set LIST_END to
> a very high value.
> 
> Thanks,
> Anoob
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 11:13 PM
> > To: akhil.goyal@nxp.com; Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>;
> > bruce.richardson@intel.com; nhorman@tuxdriver.com; John McNamara
> > <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] add ABI checks
> >
> > Anoob, Akhil,
> >
> > Please we need to revert or fix the ABI breakages in cryptodev very soon.
> > The FIXME section below must be empty.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > 29/01/2020 18:26, David Marchand:
> > > We currently have issues reported for librte_crypto recent changes for
> > > which suppression rules have been added too.
> > [..]
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/devtools/dpdk.abignore
> > > +; FIXME
> > > +[suppress_type]
> > > +        type_kind = enum
> > > +        name = rte_crypto_aead_algorithm
> > > +        changed_enumerators = RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_LIST_END
> > > +[suppress_type]
> > > +        type_kind = enum
> > > +        name = rte_crypto_asym_xform_type
> > > +        changed_enumerators = RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_TYPE_LIST_END
> > > +[suppress_variable]
> > > +        name = rte_crypto_aead_algorithm_strings
> >
> >
> >