From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] mbuf: use the reserved 16 bits for
	double vlan
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:33:51 +0200
Message-ID: <5592465F.4000706@6wind.com>
References: <1433214967-22247-1-git-send-email-helin.zhang@intel.com>
 <1434006240-7271-3-git-send-email-helin.zhang@intel.com>
 <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E70A887017@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <1516139.mFtrbLFMUC@xps13>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
 Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com (mail-wg0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 662CAC438
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:34:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by wgck11 with SMTP id k11so1693027wgc.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1516139.mFtrbLFMUC@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>

Hi,

On 06/28/2015 10:36 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Neil, Olivier,
> Your opinions are requested here.
> Thanks
>
> 2015-06-25 08:31, Zhang, Helin:
>> Hi Neil
> [...]
>>> -279,7 +285,7 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
>>>   	uint16_t data_len;        /**< Amount of data in segment buffer. */
>>>   	uint32_t pkt_len;         /**< Total pkt len: sum of all segments. */
>>>   	uint16_t vlan_tci;        /**< VLAN Tag Control Identifier (CPU order) */
>>> -	uint16_t reserved;
>>> +	uint16_t vlan_tci_outer;  /**< Outer VLAN Tag Control Identifier (CPU
>>> +order) */
>> Do you think here is a ABI break or not? Just using the reserved 16 bits, which was
>> intended for the second_vlan_tag. Thanks in advance!
>> I did not see any "Incompatible" reported by validate_abi.sh.

I don't feel there's any ABI break here. I think an application
should not use the "reserved" fields.


Regards,
Olivier