>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 think the NEXT_ABI is reasonable in this case as it does change a structure
everyone uses and the ifdef clutter is caused by having to remove old ifdefs,
which is a good thing for DPDK. The NEXT_ABI ifdefs only exist for one release
and then they will disappear, which I think is more then reasonable.
>
>>
>>> 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 -
>
Regards,
Keith
