From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mempool: reduce rte_mempool structure size
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:57:34 +0100
Message-ID: <1637610.sEJPJ7NIGK@xps13>
References: <1455039006-86816-1-git-send-email-keith.wiles@intel.com>
 <1455139134-9826-1-git-send-email-keith.wiles@intel.com>
 <56BDC0C1.9010506@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>, Keith Wiles <keith.wiles@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD8F4532D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:59:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 128so63323982wmz.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 05:59:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56BDC0C1.9010506@redhat.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>

2016-02-12 13:23, Panu Matilainen:
> On 02/10/2016 11:18 PM, Keith Wiles wrote:
> >   static inline void *rte_mempool_get_priv(struct rte_mempool *mp)
> >   {
> > +#ifdef RTE_NEXT_ABI
> > +	return (char *)mp +
> > +		MEMPOOL_HEADER_SIZE(mp, mp->pg_num, mp->cache_size);
> > +#else
> >   	return (char *)mp + MEMPOOL_HEADER_SIZE(mp, mp->pg_num);
> > +#endif /* RTE_NEXT_ABI */
> >   }
> 
> This is not RTE_NEXT_ABI material IMO, the added ifdef clutter is just 
> too much.

The changes are restricted to the mempool files.
I think it is not so much. However I wonder how much the feature is important
to justify the use of NEXT_ABI.

> I'd suggest adding a deprecation notice for the change now and after 
> 16.04 is released, just resend the patch without messing with RTE_NEXT_ABI.

When adding a deprecation notice, it is really better to provide a reference
to the code change.
So if you give up with NEXT_ABI, please add a link to this code change in
the new commit message. Thanks