From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Hunt, David" <david.hunt@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev,v5,1/3] mempool: support external handler
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 10:39:48 +0100
Message-ID: <574EAD64.9030506@intel.com>
References: <1463665501-18325-2-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com>
 <20160523143511.7d30699b@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz>
 <574D54D6.1080409@intel.com>
 <20160531140652.018a03de@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz>
 <574D95E9.4020504@intel.com> <574DF6DB.4050905@6wind.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com, pmatilai@redhat.com,
 jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
 Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C002C22
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  1 Jun 2016 11:39:51 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <574DF6DB.4050905@6wind.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>



On 5/31/2016 9:40 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote:

[...]

>>>>>> +/** Structure defining a mempool handler. */
>>>>> Later in the text, I suggested to rename rte_mempool_handler to
>>>>> rte_mempool_ops.
>>>>> I believe that it explains the purpose of this struct better. It
>>>>> would improve
>>>>> consistency in function names (the *_ext_* mark is very strange and
>>>>> inconsistent).
>>>> I agree. I've gone through all the code and renamed to
>>>> rte_mempool_handler_ops.
>>> Ok. I meant rte_mempool_ops because I find the word "handler" to be
>>> redundant.
>> I prefer the use of the word handler, unless others also have opinions
>> either way?
> Well, I think rte_mempool_ops is clear enough, and shorter,
> so I'd vote for it.
>

OK, I've just changed it. It will be in next revision. :)

Regards,
Dave.