From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A47C5A68 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:19:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from voip-107-15-76-160.kyn.rr.com ([107.15.76.160] helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1ZDvd6-0005nX-N0; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 10:19:55 -0400 Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 10:19:44 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: "Mcnamara, John" Message-ID: <20150711141944.GA10830@neilslaptop.think-freely.org> References: <1435874746-32095-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> <33405606.8BIq3zMLWK@xps13> <20150707111441.GA6932@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <2767225.WkjHcd5aCI@xps13> <20150707134403.GC6932@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mk: enable next abi in static libs X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 14:19:59 -0000 On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 04:07:53PM +0000, Mcnamara, John wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Neil Horman > > Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 2:44 PM > > To: Thomas Monjalon > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mk: enable next abi in static libs > > > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:46:08AM -0700, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > Neil, in the meantime, could you please help to check ABI breakage in > > the HEAD? > > > > > Took a look, the only ABI break I see that we need to worry about is the > > one introduced in commit 8eecb3295aed0a979def52245564d03be172a83c. It adds > > a bitfield called lro into the existing uint8_t there, but does so in the > > middle of the set, which pushes the other bits around, breaking ABI. It > > should have been added to the end. > > Hi, > > Is it okay to submit a patch to move it to the end? > Assuming that fixes the problem, I think thats the only thing you can do right now. I expect that will work, but I would run it through the ABI checker to be certain Neil > John. > -- > > > >