From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CFADA0C3F; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 21:56:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2930516245D; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 21:56:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pg1-f178.google.com (mail-pg1-f178.google.com [209.85.215.178]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF58916245C for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 21:56:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pg1-f178.google.com with SMTP id f29so17638352pgm.8 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:56:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hgbr+sXDORplgOU0/Xn9FcXKB7EMv2RQEzDIt7LFJWY=; b=BvEfBnk9yRywu7G+iuSavcVDdFwEFbtiS/BMLhPhHej1lZXLR+MlHZURMlOXZaHL7d 9zSOh5soWEI9po1OCtrWeWG/g76/5dugAs/BpSW3P8bIkQyUlfDmyfsIoTQd4wYLS4Q6 ybChEjx+ILMce5zEMEVJ8g3m1+fLpxW0ZJLnygpG9nLUJk7LbyOFrv7+cXeuRb2dV5f1 a9LNJBntnZJBEOaBZTivlugcZErrHf5PSfbY02GydP9gyM57fXEySy4TVtwgM43FLLT5 ReZ/Gl/vrAccaGfp6jcSXd5M91InJpoOiqeLrm52B72pvwYjW+yt+/eSxmZiqLz7P1Up unLA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hgbr+sXDORplgOU0/Xn9FcXKB7EMv2RQEzDIt7LFJWY=; b=DUUT9j9/p0+6PBHp2p4aQI3RJ1XjQjKCVOAzXaoKQ4e9TaHfK4HRKSedsOWm9XXz3K vnfvC4zJciwzNNe2szU707UvCX1auNymsc7ehMv2WLO5wyD8x6mNLzq4HzOhMqFYKWk2 VkBb8/5O00Bho/ZE13hCwyx81Ac5T1I5dMd5IYbbAitIz7RkS+v40zzLIHswo0HgnE4g PvMNZP150iGgFFgLatf3bsG699VJe/GREEZVN1yhS4kRU8Zotx9iRSVyGO4hZPdkwulS BarX/5vtvk3brzxeD0pL7u4k4PGcaqU6jt8PgexYle7mibAx95dJ0U/epnX9h1RsXzx3 jlYA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532NecotHwmUTUIHExZSW+FLG1WzhADCnEMd8BT8Bt4c4XLtEJq4 s4gSHloxZsoSxL/9qxhKfSltog== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwjRcUsX5W8B8nMwpCC4EY67JXFPNGe/a2nYdgSNOW5P5v7u/djTIjW4KYS8exiigP8h+OCTQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:5626:: with SMTP id k38mr5162196pgb.128.1618516616822; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local (76-14-218-44.or.wavecable.com. [76.14.218.44]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b2sm2781107pfo.110.2021.04.15.12.56.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:56:48 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Akhil Goyal Cc: David Marchand , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Thomas Monjalon , dev , Ray Kinsella , Abhinandan Gujjar , Hemant Agrawal , Nipun Gupta , Sachin Saxena , Anoob Joseph , Matan Azrad , Fan Zhang , Gagandeep Singh , Erik Gabriel Carrillo , "Jayatheerthan, Jay" , Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula , Van Haaren Harry , Shijith Thotton , Dodji Seketeli Message-ID: <20210415125648.1aa10fb7@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: References: <20210414122036.1262579-2-gakhil@marvell.com> <20210414180417.1263585-1-gakhil@marvell.com> <20210414180417.1263585-2-gakhil@marvell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH v10 1/4] devtools: add exception for reserved fields X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 08:31:30 +0000 Akhil Goyal wrote: > > > > > ; Ignore fields inserted in cacheline boundary of rte_cryptodev > > > > > [suppress_type] > > > > > name = rte_cryptodev > > > > > - has_data_member_inserted_between = {offset_after(attached), > > end} > > > > > \ No newline at end of file > > > > > + has_data_member_inserted_between = {offset_after(attached), > > end} > > > > > + > > > > > +; Ignore changes in reserved fields > > > > > +[suppress_variable] > > > > > + name_regexp = reserved > > > > Mm, this rule is a bit scary, as it matches anything with "reserved" in it. > > > > > > Why do you feel it is scary? Reserved is something which may change at > > any time > > > Just like experimental. Hence creating a generic exception rule for it make > > sense > > > And it is done intentionally in this patch. > > > > The reserved regexp on the name of a variable / struct field is too lax. > > Anything could be named with reserved in it. > > If we have clear patterns, they must be preferred, like (untested) > > name_regexp = ^reserved_(64|ptr)s$ > > > > > > Experimental is different. > > This is a symbol version tag, which has a clear meaning and can't be > > used for anything else. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You need an exception anyway to insert the new fields (like in patch 2). > > > > Can you test your series dropping this patch 1 ? > > > It will not work, as there are 2 changes, > > > 1. addition of ca_enqueue after attached. This is taken care by the > > exception set in patch 2 > > > 2. change in the reserved_ptr[4] -> reserved_ptr[3]. For this change we > > need exception for reserved. > > > > In the eventdev struct, reserved fields are all in the range between > > the attached field and the end of the struct. > > I pushed your series without patch 1 to a branch of mine, and it > > passes the check fine: > > https://github.com/david-marchand/dpdk/runs/2350324578?check_suite_focus=true#step:15:8549> > > > Yes it will work, I actually put the new field after reserved and > it was creating issues, so I added it. > But later I decided to move it above reserved fields and missed > that it will work without reserved exception. > > Hence we can drop the first patch for now. > > Regards, > Akhil Is there a check that size didn't change? For example if a reserved field was removed.