From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Matthew Hall <mhall@mhcomputing.net>
Subject: Re: difficulty w/ RTE_NEXT_ABI
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:25:18 -0500
Message-ID: <20151122002518.GA7196@mhcomputing.net>
References: <20151121084935.GA24056@mhcomputing.net> <2295250.tyqBLnBnCL@xps13>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail.mhcomputing.net (master.mhcomputing.net [74.208.228.170])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D1A8DAF
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 01:25:22 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2295250.tyqBLnBnCL@xps13>
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 Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:44:20AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 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.

But the data type of the variable is the same, and this is an internal 
always_inline function.

So again I am confused what advantage we got from RTE_NEXT_ABI here, and how 
you have multiple copies of RTE_NEXT_ABI on a single symbol when it is a 
binary variable.

This doesn't really answer the bigger question about the reasoning.

Matthew.