2016-07-27 15:21, Jerin Jacob: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:11:13AM +0000, Hemant Agrawal wrote: > > This is not a user friendly approach to ask for changing 1 API to 6 new > > APIs. Or, am I missing something? > > I agree, To me, this is very bad. I have raised this concern earlier > also > > Since applications like OVS goes through "rte_mempool_create" for > even packet buffer pool creation. IMO it make senses to extend > "rte_mempool_create" to take one more argument to provide external pool > handler name(NULL for default). I don't see any valid technical reason > to treat external pool handler based mempool creation API different > from default handler. > > Oliver, David > > Thoughts ? > > If we agree on this then may be I can send the API deprecation notices for > rte_mempool_create for v16.11
It would have been a lot better to send a patch during the 16.07 cycle to avoid breaking again the API. I'm afraid it will even be too late for the deprecation notice.
