Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/4] mempool: add non-IO flag

[Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 01:41:40PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:42 PM Dmitry Kozlyuk <dkozlyuk@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > > a/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c b/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c index
> > > 8d5f99f7e7..27d197fe86 100644
> > > --- a/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c
> > > +++ b/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c
> > > @@ -802,6 +802,7 @@ rte_mempool_cache_free(struct rte_mempool_cache
> > > *cache)
> > >         | MEMPOOL_F_SC_GET \
> > >         | MEMPOOL_F_POOL_CREATED \
> > >         | MEMPOOL_F_NO_IOVA_CONTIG \
> > > +       | MEMPOOL_F_NON_IO \
> >
> > I wonder why CREATED and NON_IO should be listed here:
> > they are not supposed to be passed by the user,
> > which is what MEMPOOL_KNOWN_FLAGS is used for.
> > The same question stands for the test code.
> > Could you confirm your suggestion?
> 
> There was no distinction in the API for valid flags so far, and indeed
> I did not pay attention to MEMPOOL_F_POOL_CREATED and its internal
> aspect.
> (That's the problem when mixing stuff together)
> 
> We could separate internal and exposed flags in different fields, but
> it seems overkill.
> It would be seen as an API change too, if application were checking
> for this flag.
> So let's keep this as is.
> 
> As you suggest, we should exclude those internal flags from
> KNOWN_FLAGS (probably rename it too), and we will have to export this

I suggest RTE_MEMPOOL_VALID_USER_FLAGS for the name

> define for the unit test since the check had been written with
> contiguous valid flags in mind.
> If your new flag is internal only, I agree we must skip it.
> 
> I'll prepare a patch for mempool.
> 
> -- 
> David Marchand
>