[dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mbuf: replace zero-length marker with unnamed union

Gavin Hu Gavin.Hu at arm.com
Thu Apr 9 11:48:39 CEST 2020


Hi David,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 11:22 PM
> To: Gavin Hu <Gavin.Hu at arm.com>
> Cc: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor at redhat.com>; Bruce Richardson
> <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Morten Brørup
> <mb at smartsharesystems.com>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>;
> dev at dpdk.org; nd <nd at arm.com>; thomas at monjalon.net;
> jerinj at marvell.com; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>; Ruifeng Wang
> <Ruifeng.Wang at arm.com>; Phil Yang <Phil.Yang at arm.com>; Joyce Kong
> <Joyce.Kong at arm.com>; stable at dpdk.org; Olivier MATZ
> <olivier.matz at 6wind.com>; Konstantin Ananyev
> <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Andrew Rybchenko
> <arybchenko at solarflare.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mbuf: replace zero-length
> marker with unnamed union
> 
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:05 PM Gavin Hu <Gavin.Hu at arm.com> wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor at redhat.com>
> > > Hi Gavin, I lost track if v2 is still a candidate for merge. fwiw, it
> > > compiles without giving the zero-length-bounds warning on my system.
> > >
> > > Kevin.
> >
> > Yes,  this path alone is a candidate for merge.
> 
> This patch is not mergeable, it would trigger failures in the ABI checks.
Isn't it a false failure? If yes, is it ignorable? 
> 
> You can see in patchwork that the robot reported a warning in Travis.
> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2020-March/119919.html
> https://travis-ci.com/github/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/295652710#L4476
> 
> 
> I opened a bz to libabigail.
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25661
> 
> 
> Either a different solution is found, or your patch will have to deal
> with this issue (libabigail fix won't be ready soon afaik) and waive
> this.
Maybe we come back to 'disable the warning', before the libabigail fix ready?  or alternatively ignore this ABI false failure, if it is. 
I do not have ideas of what otherwise the options are. 
> 
> --
> David Marchand



More information about the stable mailing list