Re: [dpdk-dev] /validate-abi.sh complains [PATCH v1 3/8] ring: introduce RTS ring mode

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

> >
> > Ok, so what is the procedure here?
> > Should I submit changes to devtools/libabigail.abignore together with the
> > patch that introduced the problem?
> > BTW, I used the following changes in libabigail.abignore to supress errors:
> > $ git diff devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > diff --git a/devtools/libabigail.abignore b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > index a59df8f13..032479b9f 100644
> > --- a/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > +++ b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > @@ -11,3 +11,9 @@
> >          type_kind = enum
> >          name = rte_crypto_asym_xform_type
> >          changed_enumerators = RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_TYPE_LIST_END
> > +; Ignore updates of ring prod/cons
> > +[suppress_type]
> > +        type_kind = struct
> > +        name = rte_ring
> > +        has_data_members_inserted_at = offsetof(prod)
> > +        has_data_members_inserted_at = offsetof(cons)
> 
> Hum, I could not find offsetof() in the manual but I did find offset_of().

Yep, typo from me.

> 
> But anyway, I understand this has_data_members_inserted_at is a way to
> select structs.
> Not a way to filter out changes that touches fields offsets inside the
> rte_ring structure.

Seems so.
 
> So you might as well simplify the rule and suppress the whole rte_ring
> struct changes.

Ok.

> I suspect this is what is happening here: abidiff did not complain
> about the offsetof vs offset_of thing, so the
> has_data_members_inserted_at criterias may have been ignored.
> 

Konstantin