2015-07-24 10:50, Ananyev, Konstantin: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > 2015-07-24 09:15, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > > 2015-07-22 19:28, Konstantin Ananyev: > > > > > +struct rte_eth_rxq_info { > > > > > + struct rte_mempool *mp; /**< mempool used by that queue. */ > > > > > + struct rte_eth_rxconf conf; /**< queue config parameters. */ > > > > > + uint8_t scattered_rx; /**< scattered packets RX > > > > > supported. */ > > > > > + uint16_t nb_desc; /**< configured number of RXDs. */ > > > > > > > > Shouldn't we move nb_desc in rte_eth_rxconf? > > > > So rte_eth_rx_queue_setup() would have less parameters. > > > > > > I thought about that too, but it seems more drawbacks then pluses with > > > that idea: > > > 1. Right now it is possible to call rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(..., > > > rx_conf=NULL, ...); > > > In that case rte_eth_rx_queue_setup()will use default for that device > > > rx_conf. > > > If we'll move mempool into rxconf, will break that ability. > > > 2. A bit unclear what mempool should be returned as default_rxconf by > > > rte_eth_dev_info_get(). > > > Should it be just NULL. > > > > I was only suggesting to move nb_desc, not mempool. > > Ah, sorry didn't read it properly first time. > Yes, I think it makes sense to move nb_desc into rxconf, though that means > ABI breakage, > and that patch would definitely not make into 2.1.
You can avoid ABI breakage by using the compat macros and/or NEXT_ABI. But it shouldn't go into 2.1 as the API shouldn't be changed after RC1.
