From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: usages issue with external mempool Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 12:00:34 +0200 Message-ID: <1626416.VyKLPpZHgH@xps13> References: <20160727095128.GA11679@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: David Hunt , dev@dpdk.org, "olivier.matz@6wind.com" , "viktorin@rehivetech.com" , Shreyansh Jain To: Jerin Jacob , Hemant Agrawal Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4EF374D for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 12:00:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id f65so206121809wmi.0 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 03:00:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160727095128.GA11679@localhost.localdomain> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2016-07-27 15:21, Jerin Jacob: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:11:13AM +0000, Hemant Agrawal wrote: > > This is not a user friendly approach to ask for changing 1 API to 6 new APIs. Or, am I missing something? > > I agree, To me, this is very bad. I have raised this concern earlier > also > > Since applications like OVS goes through "rte_mempool_create" for > even packet buffer pool creation. IMO it make senses to extend > "rte_mempool_create" to take one more argument to provide external pool > handler name(NULL for default). I don't see any valid technical reason > to treat external pool handler based mempool creation API different > from default handler. > > Oliver, David > > Thoughts ? > > If we agree on this then may be I can send the API deprecation notices for > rte_mempool_create for v16.11 It would have been a lot better to send a patch during the 16.07 cycle to avoid breaking again the API. I'm afraid it will even be too late for the deprecation notice.