From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: remove inconsistent assert statements
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 17:27:37 +0200
Message-ID: <11387408.tmVAJa3yAF@xps13>
References: <1465374688-11729-1-git-send-email-adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
 <57591EEA.9040807@6wind.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B6D90C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
 Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>, "Zhang,
 Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com (mail-wm0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1F62716
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  9 Jun 2016 17:27:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f42.google.com with SMTP id k204so65636454wmk.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 08:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B6D90C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
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>

2016-06-09 13:21, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> > Today:
> > 
> >   /* allowed */
> >   m = rte_pktmbuf_alloc();
> >   rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
> > 
> >   /* not allowed */
> >   m = rte_mbuf_raw_alloc();
> >   __rte_mbuf_raw_free(m);
> > 
> >   /* we should do instead (strange): */
> >   m = rte_mbuf_raw_alloc();
> >   rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
> > 
> > What I suggest to have:
> > 
> >   /* allowed, no change */
> >   m = rte_pktmbuf_alloc();
> >   rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
> > 
> >   /* allowed, these functions would be symetrical */
> >   m = rte_mbuf_raw_alloc();
> >   rte_mbuf_raw_free(m);
> > 
> >   /* not allowed, m->refcnt is uninitialized */
> >   m = rte_mbuf_raw_alloc();
> >   rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
> 
> Hmm, and what it will buy us (except of symmetry)?

API consistency is important.
It is a matter of making our users confident in DPDK.

I would not like to use a library where I need to check in the doc
for each function because I don't remember and I'm not confident
that the function fish() do some fishing or hunting.