02/02/2022 12:44, Ray Kinsella: > Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]> writes: > > On 1/28/2022 12:48 PM, Kalesh A P wrote: > >> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h > >> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h > >> @@ -3818,6 +3818,24 @@ enum rte_eth_event_type { > >> RTE_ETH_EVENT_DESTROY, /**< port is released */ > >> RTE_ETH_EVENT_IPSEC, /**< IPsec offload related event */ > >> RTE_ETH_EVENT_FLOW_AGED,/**< New aged-out flows is detected */ > >> + RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING, > >> + /**< port recovering from an error > >> + * > >> + * PMD detected a FW reset or error condition. > >> + * PMD will try to recover from the error. > >> + * Data path may be quiesced and Control path operations > >> + * may fail at this time. > >> + */ > >> + RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERED, > >> + /**< port recovered from an error > >> + * > >> + * PMD has recovered from the error condition. > >> + * Control path and Data path are up now. > >> + * PMD re-configures the port to the state prior to the > >> error. > >> + * Since the device has undergone a reset, flow rules > >> + * offloaded prior to reset may be lost and > >> + * the application should recreate the rules again. > >> + */ > >> RTE_ETH_EVENT_MAX /**< max value of this enum */ > > > > > > Also ABI check complains about 'RTE_ETH_EVENT_MAX' value check, cc'ed more > > people > > to evaluate if it is a false positive: > > > > > > 1 function with some indirect sub-type change: > > [C] 'function int rte_eth_dev_callback_register(uint16_t, > > rte_eth_event_type, rte_eth_dev_cb_fn, void*)' at rte_ethdev.c:4637:1 has > > some indirect sub-type changes: > > parameter 3 of type 'typedef rte_eth_dev_cb_fn' has sub-type changes: > > underlying type 'int (typedef uint16_t, enum rte_eth_event_type, > > void*, void*)*' changed: > > in pointed to type 'function type int (typedef uint16_t, enum > > rte_eth_event_type, void*, void*)': > > parameter 2 of type 'enum rte_eth_event_type' has sub-type > > changes: > > type size hasn't changed > > 2 enumerator insertions: > > 'rte_eth_event_type::RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING' value '11' > > 'rte_eth_event_type::RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERED' value '12' > > 1 enumerator change: > > 'rte_eth_event_type::RTE_ETH_EVENT_MAX' from value '11' to > > '13' at rte_ethdev.h:3807:1 > > I don't immediately see the problem that this would cause. > There are no array sizes etc dependent on the value of MAX for instance. > > Looks safe?
We never know how this enum will be used by the application. The max value may be used for the size of an event array. It looks a real ABI issue unfortunately. PS: I am not Cc'ed in this patchset, so copying what I said on v6 (more than a year ago): Please use the option --cc-cmd devtools/get-maintainer.sh
