Re: [PATCH v2] devtools/cocci: update cocci for ethdev namespace

From: "Singh, Aman Deep" <aman.deep.singh@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>, <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] devtools/cocci: update cocci for ethdev namespace
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:04:30 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bcdf0260-9e34-caa3-8f9e-9ca98cfebc55@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3196155.AxlXzFCzgd@thomas>


On 2/16/2022 3:47 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 15/02/2022 19:51, Singh, Aman Deep:
>> On 2/11/2022 10:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 11/02/2022 09:07, Singh, Aman Deep:
>>>> On 2/10/2022 9:00 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>> 10/02/2022 14:26, Singh, Aman Deep:
>>>>>> On 2/4/2022 1:17 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>>>> 04/02/2022 07:13, Singh, Aman Deep:
>>>>>>>> Hi Thomas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2022 2:31 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 23/01/2022 18:20, Aman Singh:
>>>>>>>>>> Added two specific exceptions for ETH_SPEED_10G
>>>>>>>>>> and ETH_SPEED_25G to avoid there name change.
>>>>>>>>>> Added check for ETH_TUNNEL_FILTER and ETH_RSS_RETA
>>>>>>>>> Please could you explain why?
>>>>>>>> These two macro's ETH_SPEED_10G & ETH_SPEED_25G are used by ifpga
>>>>>>>> driver and script should no change these.
>>>>>>>> There are multiple ETH_SPEED_NUM_xxx macro that need to be changed
>>>>>>>> to RTE_ETH_SPEED_NUM_xxx. So added above two as specific exceptions.
>>>>>>> Why doing this exception? What is special with ifpga?
>>>>>> These two macro's are defined in 'ifpga/base/opae_eth_group.h'
>>>>>> we don't intend to change these. Target is ethdev namespace only.
>>>>> So we will miss future use of a deprecated macro
>>>>> because ifpga is redefining it?
>>>>> I think it is a wrong approach.
>>>>> We should not make any exception in the check.
>>>>> Instead we can just ignore the warning for ifpga.
>>>> Actually ifpga is not redefining these two macro's ETH_SPEED_10G & ETH_SPEED_25G,
>>>> they are unique to it. Only there prefix, matches with ethdev macro's
>>>> ETH_SPEED_NUM_xxx, which caused coccinelle script to modify these to
>>>> RTE_ETH_SPEED_10G & RTE_ETH_SPEED_25G. So just avoiding it by this change.
>>> Would it work to restrict the match to ETH_SPEED_NUM?
>> The script will change ETH_SPEED_NUM_xxx macros to RTE_ETH_SPEED_NUM_xxx
>> as per the requirement.
> No there is a misunderstanding.
> I am asking to filter on ETH_SPEED_NUM instead of ETH_SPEED with exceptions.
Yes, can do it this way. I will upload new patch with this change.
>
>
>