From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] hash: replace existing hash library
 with cuckoo hash implementation
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:26:29 +0100
Message-ID: <20150713162629.GC6932@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <1436571020-16252-1-git-send-email-pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
 <20150713161154.GA6932@bricha3-MOBL3>
 <20150713161420.GB6932@bricha3-MOBL3> <8164644.CYfKgKpKoo@xps13>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41ED05A43
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 18:26:33 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8164644.CYfKgKpKoo@xps13>
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>

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 06:20:08PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-07-13 17:14, Bruce Richardson:
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 05:11:54PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:29:53AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 2015-07-11 01:18, Pablo de Lara:
> > > > > The main change when creating a new table is that the number of entries
> > > > > per bucket is fixed now, so its parameter is ignored now
> > > > > (still there to maintain the same parameters structure).
> > > > 
> > > > Why not rename the "bucket_entries" field to "reserved"?
> > > > The API of this field has changed (now ignored) so it should be reflected
> > > > without changing the ABI.
> > > 
> > > Since the hash_create function is itself already versionned to take account of the
> > > new struct parameter, there is no reason to keep the field at all, as far as I can see.
> > > We can just drop it, and let the ABI versionning handle the change.
> > > 
> > > /Bruce
> > 
> > Sorry, my mistake. It's no longer versioned in the patchset that was merged, so
> > the field does need to be kept. :-(
> 
> So do you agree to submit a patch which rename the unused field?

Yes. It should be in your inbox now... :-)