Re: difficulty w/ RTE_NEXT_ABI

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2015-11-21 03:49, Matthew Hall:
> I was trying to rebase my DPDK onto v2.1.0 and I came across some very 
> confusing code in examples/l3fwd/main.c .
> 
> So... this code used the RTE_NEXT_ABI macros on a change which does not appear 
> to affect the API... on a function that is marked always_inline ???
> 
> Maybe I missed something but this seems pointless. An always_inline function 
> is going to have to be recompiled in any case.
> 
> Now I have no clue what would makes sense for my version of the function 
> either... because RTE_NEXT_ABI is a binary on/off but trying to track a 
> multi-variate quantity of ABI updates.
> 
> For now I guess I have to write it like this inside the RTE_NEXT_ABI:
> 
> rfc1812_process(struct ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr, uint32_t *dp, uint32_t ptype)
> 
> This seems unpleasant and kind of painful. What did I miss here?
> 
> Matthew.
> 
> static inline __attribute__((always_inline)) void
> <<<<<<< 8e29af8a2843b6342dbc72db43ac82c9d29695bf
> #ifdef RTE_NEXT_ABI
> rfc1812_process(struct ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr, uint16_t *dp, uint32_t ptype)
> #else
> rfc1812_process(struct ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr, uint16_t *dp, uint32_t flags)
> #endif

The new mbuf provides packet type instead of flags.
So the processing in this function is changed and the variable name is
different to reflect this.