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 06509A034C; Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:56:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E95874113D; Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:56:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B287410FD for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:56:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D4925C0208; Fri, 25 Feb 2022 12:56:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 25 Feb 2022 12:56:22 -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=5jKGnY3FDMh+0q GcXLkGEUHRTJ4YyGX/12CT08MbXd0=; b=F661GH+hWghDqzH+7+oY5uGt8hbBCt 8jfhy9sLXnAF1PxMkR6sCC3/wDFo7Pa9tDGoZRkk4EPbvzeTlmpD0mnmhgGHu2yq Rk0GUicrpdw5Xbdx5ay0xwqym3p1J7LkjCjiXYWcb0lOU7RzJwFLSf4JI0W6p/my 6+jw8V1LR4oYXKGTL3B9IYfHvwXSdLNF7yaD3IDeKIsx4QlAiCYD5/LpFCtWEfWf t2LZnJJVC6V7vjy66Wk0Gj2UPUSh2TIzSX+QV+Cj6Ysq5PN25JARKfiRXgBMj0RQ Q+cxTjX+11/ZZbTqujGjZuTHao5Rb7sNhTW7XgYpI4hj8vj9N+MBFy6Q== 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=5jKGnY3FDMh+0qGcXLkGEUHRTJ4YyGX/12CT08MbX d0=; b=JVD+l0dicV82okEfH9kut7yOo3SwbtwSHuQgTC0fzjqriLnJJaM7Fs98S TeQnnmA1AQwYlS7zvMYHe1CSXxVd9oru9aEGbV6rYo4ChB46bl1SGx3bf3evM883 iKmWlY+1ahLzjrYBHfWtwzZA46S7nRNvVyN/MVRPGKsFhwo89iBDZCTFLeV337tm rmZUeXBwGexyP3n7Af7MoXoU4LD3rO1pwuFnmo/G2e5/ymZlXHqspiouAvHKZBVw +xBfzRskUiD9MmjUG5buUzuP/3VM6ZnICVwpXRaA2AxR3uG6AQ8zQmOSJ0HmPJW7 t1wFKYpDkVgAe2p9wQpbQPpWnnJNw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrleeggddutdejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 25 Feb 2022 12:56:21 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Akhil Goyal , "Kusztal, ArkadiuszX" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Zhang, Roy Fan" , ray.kinsella@intel.com, david.marchand@redhat.com Subject: Re: [EXT] [PATCH] crypto: fix misspelled key in qt format Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:56:20 +0100 Message-ID: <3125054.AJdgDx1Vlc@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20220210102533.22192-1-arkadiuszx.kusztal@intel.com> 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 18/02/2022 07:11, Kusztal, ArkadiuszX: > From: Akhil Goyal > > Fix ABI warning. > > Add libabigail.abiignore rule. > > I think what is worth noticing is a fact that after "random 'k' patch" addition of > [suppress_type] > name = rte_crypto_asym_op > this problem does not show up. > > But I think it is safer to send addition of > [suppress_type] > name = rte_crypto_rsa_priv_key_type > anyway. > Will send v2. I don't understand why adding this rule, and the comment does say nothing about it: "Ignore name change of rsa qt key type" The ABI check is fine without above because of this existing exception: ; Ignore changes to rte_crypto_asym_op, asymmetric crypto API is experimental [suppress_type] name = rte_crypto_asym_op So I will just drop the unjustified additional exception while pulling. Next time, please make sure such ABI exception is approved by more maintainers.