From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mk: enable next abi in static libs
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 10:19:44 -0400
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>
 <B27915DBBA3421428155699D51E4CFE2F6A77E@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: "Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A47C5A68
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:19:59 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <B27915DBBA3421428155699D51E4CFE2F6A77E@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

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.
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
>