On 02/12/2016 03:57 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-02-12 13:23, Panu Matilainen:
>> On 02/10/2016 11:18 PM, Keith Wiles wrote:
>>> static inline void *rte_mempool_get_priv(struct rte_mempool *mp)
>>> {
>>> +#ifdef RTE_NEXT_ABI
>>> + return (char *)mp +
>>> + MEMPOOL_HEADER_SIZE(mp, mp->pg_num, mp->cache_size);
>>> +#else
>>> return (char *)mp + MEMPOOL_HEADER_SIZE(mp, mp->pg_num);
>>> +#endif /* RTE_NEXT_ABI */
>>> }
>>
>> This is not RTE_NEXT_ABI material IMO, the added ifdef clutter is just
>> too much.
>
> The changes are restricted to the mempool files.
> I think it is not so much. However I wonder how much the feature is important
> to justify the use of NEXT_ABI.
Well yes, to be precise: for the benefit of this patch, the ifdef
clutter seems too much.
Its not as if every change is expected to go through a NEXT_ABI phase,
based on http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/032866.html there
might be some confusion regarding that.
>
>> I'd suggest adding a deprecation notice for the change now and after
>> 16.04 is released, just resend the patch without messing with RTE_NEXT_ABI.
>
> When adding a deprecation notice, it is really better to provide a reference
> to the code change.
> So if you give up with NEXT_ABI, please add a link to this code change in
> the new commit message. Thanks
>
Nod.
- Panu -
