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 6D1EAA0032; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:28:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA0340140; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:28:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6E9340042 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:28:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 837DC32020B7; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 12:28:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 11 Feb 2022 12:28:41 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; bh=mmEwA/Y0fgzN79 nPPH51Yp0Op8ZkCtt0dX/1ei/0bt4=; b=o5XsxqAjc+OCP/hq/so0dJuGdvCXz5 tNm0hbfyRAcWBoweYXoY4mj67ybJNe78SxTXM5qCdg7VE4M3dxMNGpdsw5XIoVm5 k30DImh/cz5S6C/7cI9YUFB/W9Wv8yZCrp/Enq78ROJ/7ZygzDAclHkFD5vdiBoN u9HmH7lt7AQxNklQe6iteTWKw3L0Oh/eysG9RjQo0IbT3BYo3Z0QguOn5dcDo9Gf KdQeLTDbNX2MB84x9rlSvrQ4Sb0kpf5plq6mlUQ2QzxOARDPnBrMbaCdTeq1zOgm mXzn0P8nuTLq6iA4aG5W1pO74PAwdIUYnuwWtJuWcy+kK5EIrna9TNrA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=mmEwA/Y0fgzN79nPPH51Yp0Op8ZkCtt0dX/1ei/0b t4=; b=TWyAdGXDI+aHmFwuA0hPtZ1A4b2/j5J4BZX7UF1WkHCrMDh63P4RCXrSU +wZy0UDkUKiZI01k0+7QznNvNsSJfTyyABYDiv7vtDIzmGcQgEfmmvHaLQ5uCAif QrHI9CqE4leyoVP3ThRew88qpJ7bRqQpr+L0wxB+8NTQI54YKdHdzz95LAwLSzcu ZqBumPIdR9vWoDXuKFb8HsQRECDeugg/B0bgmvRuEVK8ZT9U8DxylRMbqw9jye1A sQKA677Su3ale8ZNbn9jszBW+Z/92yW+9xvkuzeA0LwHn9+n+Z2fYAATYH1rBxdZ Qj0nklr7nUQkCT3KnLdYFE1651pPA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrieefgdellecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 12:28:40 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Singh, Aman Deep" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, ferruh.yigit@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] devtools/cocci: update cocci for ethdev namespace Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:28:37 +0100 Message-ID: <2756826.yaVYbkx8dN@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20220123172046.1296964-1-aman.deep.singh@intel.com> <1843605.IobQ9Gjlxr@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 11/02/2022 09:07, Singh, Aman Deep: > 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. Would it work to restrict the match to ETH_SPEED_NUM?