[v9,4/4] devtools: add exception for reserved fields

  From: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>

Certain structures are added with reserved fields
to address any future enhancements to retain ABI
compatibility.
However, ABI script will still report error as it
is not aware of reserved fields. Hence, adding a
generic exception for reserved fields.

Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
---
 devtools/libabigail.abignore | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
  

14/04/2021 14:20, gakhil@marvell.com:
> From: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
> 
> Certain structures are added with reserved fields
> to address any future enhancements to retain ABI
> compatibility.
> However, ABI script will still report error as it
> is not aware of reserved fields. Hence, adding a
> generic exception for reserved fields.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
> ---
>  devtools/libabigail.abignore | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/devtools/libabigail.abignore b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> index 46a5a6af5..a9d284f76 100644
> --- a/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> +++ b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> @@ -25,3 +25,7 @@
>  [suppress_type]
>  	name = rte_eventdev
>  	has_data_member_inserted_between = {offset_after(attached), end}
> +
> +; Ignore changes in reserved fields
> +[suppress_variable]
> +	name_regexp = reserved

If we do that as first patch of this series,
we don't need the exception on rte_eventdev, right?
  

Hi Thomas,

14/04/2021 14:20, gakhil@marvell.com:
> From: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
>
> Certain structures are added with reserved fields
> to address any future enhancements to retain ABI
> compatibility.
> However, ABI script will still report error as it
> is not aware of reserved fields. Hence, adding a
> generic exception for reserved fields.
>
> Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
> ---
>  devtools/libabigail.abignore | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/devtools/libabigail.abignore b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> index 46a5a6af5..a9d284f76 100644
> --- a/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> +++ b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> @@ -25,3 +25,7 @@
>  [suppress_type]
>        name = rte_eventdev
>        has_data_member_inserted_between = {offset_after(attached), end}
> +
> +; Ignore changes in reserved fields
> +[suppress_variable]
> +     name_regexp = reserved

If we do that as first patch of this series,
we don't need the exception on rte_eventdev, right?

It will still be required, as we have 2 issues
1. Reserved_ptr[4] to reserved[3]
2. Additional member ca_enqueue added

So we need both.

Regards,
Akhil
  

14/04/2021 16:16, Akhil Goyal:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> > 14/04/2021 14:20, gakhil@marvell.com:
> > > From: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
> > > 
> > > Certain structures are added with reserved fields
> > > to address any future enhancements to retain ABI
> > > compatibility.
> > > However, ABI script will still report error as it
> > > is not aware of reserved fields. Hence, adding a
> > > generic exception for reserved fields.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > >  devtools/libabigail.abignore | 4 ++++
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/devtools/libabigail.abignore b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > > index 46a5a6af5..a9d284f76 100644
> > > --- a/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > > +++ b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > > @@ -25,3 +25,7 @@
> > > 
> > >  [suppress_type]
> > >  
> > >        name = rte_eventdev
> > >        has_data_member_inserted_between = {offset_after(attached), end}
> > > 
> > > +
> > > +; Ignore changes in reserved fields
> > > +[suppress_variable]
> > > +     name_regexp = reserved
> > 
> > If we do that as first patch of this series,
> > we don't need the exception on rte_eventdev, right?
> 
> It will still be required, as we have 2 issues
> 1. Reserved_ptr[4] to reserved[3]
> 2. Additional member ca_enqueue added
> 
> So we need both.

If this patch is required, it should not be the last one.
  

> > > > diff --git a/devtools/libabigail.abignore b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > > > index 46a5a6af5..a9d284f76 100644
> > > > --- a/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > > > +++ b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > > > @@ -25,3 +25,7 @@
> > > >
> > > >  [suppress_type]
> > > >
> > > >        name = rte_eventdev
> > > >        has_data_member_inserted_between = {offset_after(attached),
> end}
> > > >
> > > > +
> > > > +; Ignore changes in reserved fields
> > > > +[suppress_variable]
> > > > +     name_regexp = reserved
> > >
> > > If we do that as first patch of this series,
> > > we don't need the exception on rte_eventdev, right?
> >
> > It will still be required, as we have 2 issues
> > 1. Reserved_ptr[4] to reserved[3]
> > 2. Additional member ca_enqueue added
> >
> > So we need both.
> 
> If this patch is required, it should not be the last one.
> 
Ok, I will resend.