> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > 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.
[Hemant] It is better. However, I will also suggest to upgrade "rte_pktmbuf_pool_create" with obj_init, this will create consistency in applications to use it instead of using rte_mempool_create. > > > > 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. [Hemant] Yes! It is late. we can make these changes immediately after 16.07.
