On 15/02/2016 10:15, Olivier MATZ wrote: > Hi David, > > On 02/15/2016 10:58 AM, Hunt, David wrote: >> On 12/02/2016 15:50, Olivier MATZ wrote: >>> - NEXT_ABI does make the code harder to read in this case, and I'm >>> thinking about the patchset from David Hunt (external mempool handler) >>> that will be in the same situation, and maybe also another patchset >>> I'm working on. >> >> Olivier, >> I'm working on that at the moment with the external mempool handler >> code. However, it crossed my mind that we have a choice to use symbol >> versioning OR use NEXT_ABI. Would one method be preferred over the other? > > I think symbol versioning should always be preferred when possible. > > In your case, as far as I remember, your are updating the rte_mempool > structure, which is accessed by static inline functions. I don't think > it is easily manageable with symbol versioning. Moreover, the ABI will > already be broken by Keith's patch, so I think it's less problematic > to have other patches breaking the ABI at the same time.
OK, Thanks for that. I'll use NEXT_ABI in this case so. :) Regards, David.
