Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ring: future proof flag settings

["Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 8:02 PM
> To: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; nd <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ring: future proof flag settings
> 
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 18:07:15 +0000
> Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > All API's should check that they support the flag values passed.
> > > These checks ensure that the extra bits can safely be used without risk of ABI
> > > breakage.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> > > ---
> > >  lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.c b/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.c index
> > > ebe5ccf0de68..70685121581f 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.c
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.c
> > > @@ -42,6 +42,9 @@ static struct rte_tailq_elem rte_ring_tailq = {  };
> > >  EAL_REGISTER_TAILQ(rte_ring_tailq)
> > >
> > > +/* mask of all valid flag values to ring_create() */
> > > +#define RING_F_MASK	0x007F
> > Is it better to construct this using the actual flag #defines?
> 
> sure, but it gets long

+1 to use public defines here.