From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] mbuf: support attaching external
	buffer to mbuf
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:07:37 +0200
Message-ID: <20180426200737.hhgj4pkvs2qc63bw@neon>
References: <20180310012532.15809-1-yskoh@mellanox.com>
 <1854520.Legm0nyyME@xps> <20180426194208.vm7rr5svn6xq7ki5@neon>
 <3222860.1kATvoXXQV@xps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
 Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>, wenzhuo.lu@intel.com,
 jingjing.wu@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com,
 stephen@networkplumber.org, adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com,
 nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 523447CC5
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:07:46 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3222860.1kATvoXXQV@xps>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://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: <https://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 Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 09:58:00PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 26/04/2018 21:42, Olivier Matz:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 06:10:36PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 26/04/2018 18:05, Andrew Rybchenko:
> > > > On 04/26/2018 04:10 AM, Yongseok Koh wrote:
> > > > > -#define RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(mb)   ((mb)->ol_flags & IND_ATTACHED_MBUF)
> > > > > +#define RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(mb)   RTE_MBUF_CLONED(mb)
> > > > 
> > > > We have discussed that it would be good to deprecate RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT()
> > > > since it is not !RTE_MBUF_DIREC(). Is it lost here or intentional (may 
> > > > be I've lost
> > > > in the thread)?
> > > 
> > > I think it should be a separate deprecation notice.
> > 
> > Agree with Andrew that RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT should be deprecated
> > to avoid confusion with !DIRECT.
> 
> What do you mean?
> We should add a comment? Or poisoining the macro? Or something else?
> Should it be removed? In which release?

Sorry if I was not clear.

Not necessarly remove the macro for this release. But I think we
should announce it and remove it, following the process.

I suggest:
- for 18.05: send the deprecation notice + add a comment in the .h
  saying that the macro will be deprecated in 18.08 (or 18.11, there
  is no hurry if there is the comment)
- for 18.08 (or 18.11): remove the macro (I don't think poisoining
  is useful in this case).