> -----Original Message----- > From: Richardson, Bruce > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 12:22 PM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Burakov, Anatoly > <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>; Jerin Jacob > <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: techbo...@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [dpdk-techboard] [dpdk-dev] DPDK techboard minutes of October 24 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: techboard [mailto:techboard-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev, > > Konstantin > > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 11:24 AM > > To: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>; Jerin Jacob > > <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: techbo...@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-techboard] [dpdk-dev] DPDK techboard minutes of October > > 24 > > > > > > Hi Anatoly, > > > > > > Meeting notes for the DPDK technical board meeting held on > > > > 2018-10-24 > > > > > > > > Attendees: > > > > - Bruce Richardson > > > > - Ferruh Yigit > > > > - Hemant Agrawal > > > > - Jerin Jacob > > > > - Konstantin Ananyev > > > > - Maxime Coquelin > > > > - Olivier Matz > > > > - Stephen Hemminger > > > > - Thomas Monjalon > > > > > > > > 0) DPDK acceptance policy on un-implemented API > > > > - New APIs without implementation is not accepted. > > > > - In order to accept a new API, At minimum > > > > a) Need to provide an unit test case or example application > > > > b) If the API is about HW abstraction, at least one driver should be > > > > implemented. Preferably two. > > > > c) If there are strong objections on ML about the need for more than > > > > one driver for a specific API then the technical board can make a > > > > decision. > > > > - Konstantin volunteered to send existing un-implemented API to the > > > > mailing list. > > > > - The existing un-implemented APIs will be deprecated in v19.05. > > > > - Deprecated un-implemented API will be removed in v19.08 > > > > > > > > > > Does this also apply to unimplemented parts of the existing API? For > > > example, malloc API has long had a "name" parameter which goes > > > unimplemented through entire lifetime of DPDK project. It would be > > > good to drop this thing entirely as it's clear it's not going to be > > > implemented any time soon :) > > > > > > > Sounds like a good idea to me. > > Konstantin > > While a good idea in theory, I'm not sure the cost-benefit pays off for this > one. Given the fact that the extra parameter is rather harmless, > the benefit seems minimal compared to the effort which would be involved for > everyone to have to change every rte_malloc call in every > app!
I am agree about massive amount of changes, though I thought Anatoly sort of volunteering for it :) About benefit - it would save us spilling/restoring one register for each rte_malloc() call. Probably not that important, as rte_malloc() usually is used from data-path, but still. Plus it doesn't look good to have a function with parameter that would never be used. Konstantin
