From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mbuf: update default Mempool ops with HW
	active pool
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:19:11 +0530
Message-ID: <2a6099ab-29fe-e9c4-3eec-4f71444896ba@nxp.com>
References: <1499170968-23016-1-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
 <1513333483-4372-1-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
 <1513333483-4372-2-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
 <20171218085507.GA20578@jerin> <85485fb0-f602-78af-c40a-7bfb4bda561e@nxp.com>
 <20171222145957.tc56hzyzbxj65rg5@platinum>
 <64ba944d-a31e-a42f-1d9e-619dbeef59fe@nxp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
 <santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-bn3nam01on0057.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.33.57])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0771B01F
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:49:18 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <64ba944d-a31e-a42f-1d9e-619dbeef59fe@nxp.com>
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>

Hi Olivier,

>> I just feel it's a bit messy to have:
>>
>> - rte_eal_mbuf_default_mempool_ops() in eal API
>>   return user-selected ops if any, or compile-time default
>>
>> - rte_pktmbuf_active_mempool_ops() in mbuf API
>>   return platform ops except if a selected user ops != compile default
>>
>> Thomas suggested somewhere (but I don't remember in which thread) to have
>> rte_eal_mbuf_default_mempool_ops() in mbuf code, and I think he was
>> right.
>>
>
> The idea is good. It will break ABI, but we can move around in
> systematic way.
>
>> I think the whole mbuf pool ops selection mechanism should be at the
>> same place. I could be in a specific file of librte_mbuf.
>>
I have just tried to implement your suggestions.  I need one clarification.

Eal based internal config is being used to store the command line 
mempool_ops_name.

If we want it to be a mbuf based API (instead of eal_mbuf), we need to 
export internal_config via map file for shared build.
Are you fine with that?

If not, we have to live with eal_mbuf APIs only.

Regards,
Hemant