2014-09-18 15:31, De Lara Guarch, Pablo: > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com]
> > Thread safe hash tables seem to me like a configuration option rather than > > a new > > library. Instead of creating a whole new library (with a new API and ABI > > to maintain, why not just add thread safety as a configurable option to > > the existing hash library. That saves code space in the DPDK, and > > reduces application complexity (as the same api is useable for thread > > safe and unsafe hash tables) > > Makes sense, but implementation has changed so much to add it directly into > the existing library. At first, this was designed to be a replacement of > the existing library, but since API is a bit different from the old one, it > was thought to leave it as an alternative, so users are not forced to have > to change their applications if they don't want to use thread safe hash > tables. It makes me smile :) You basically explain that it's more complicated to properly merge two different implementations than just throwing a new one in the big DPDK bucket. My opinion is that it should not be integrated as is because we must try to make DPDK something else than a trash bucket. Thanks for continuing your effort to make DPDK easier and better. -- Thomas
