From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hemant Agrawal Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] doc: announce ABI change for pktmbuf pool create API Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:10:03 +0530 Message-ID: <52edf0a5-f406-1773-ee52-5ca9ee4cf7fc@nxp.com> References: <1513333251-4147-1-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> <1513334482-4788-1-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "olivier.matz@6wind.com" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Jerin Jacob , Neil Horman To: "Wiles, Keith" Return-path: Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2nam02on0063.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.38.63]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE2831DBF for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 06:40:10 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 12/18/2017 7:21 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote: > > >> On Dec 15, 2017, at 4:41 AM, Hemant Agrawal wrote: >> >> Introduce a new argument ops_name in rte_mempool_set_ops_byname >> for allowing the application to optionally specify the mempool ops. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal >> --- >> v2: fix checkpatch error >> >> doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >> index 13e8543..968ca14 100644 >> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >> @@ -53,3 +53,6 @@ Deprecation Notices >> >> * librte_meter: The API will change to accommodate configuration profiles. >> Most of the API functions will have an additional opaque parameter. >> + >> +* librte_mbuf: a new optional parameter for representing name of mempool_ops >> + will be added to the API ``rte_pktmbuf_pool_create``. > > > Sorry, for the late response I was on vacation. > > My question is why do we need to change rte_pktmbuf_pool_create ABI yet again, why could we not add a new API to just set the name of the pool after it is created. This would allow all current applications to work without any ABI breakage and only require adding a new API call for anyone that wants the name. The rte_pktmbuf_pool_create() routine could assign a default name or some incrementing style name as the default. e.g. ‘pktmbuf_%d’ with a static incrementing variable or whatever you like. > > Sorry if this was asked and answered before. > I understand the concerns. However, the new API to just set the name will not work post create. rte_pktmbuf_pool_create is a wrapper API, which complete the mempool configuration on the basis default mempool_ops. The idea proposed is to create pktmbuf pool from a specific mempool (ops_name). We can leave "rte_pktmbuf_pool_create" as it is. and create another similar API with e.g. "rte_pktmbuf_pool_create_specific", which will also take ops_name as argument. (We can combine the internal implementation with NULL ops_name for rte_pktmbuf_pool_create.) This way we will have flexibility for the applications looking for pktmbufs from a specific mempool. any thoughts? Hemant >> -- >> 2.7.4 >> > > Regards, > Keith >