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.

>
>>>> The other two patterns ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER & ETH_RSS_RETA were missed before.
>>>> The script should change these to RTE_ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER & RTE_ETH_RSS_RETA
>>> The explanations should be part of the commit log please.
>> Sure, if this explanation is fine? Will update in next version.
> Yes thanks.
>
>