2016-06-09 13:21, Ananyev, Konstantin: > From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com] > > Today: > > > > /* allowed */ > > m = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(); > > rte_pktmbuf_free(m); > > > > /* not allowed */ > > m = rte_mbuf_raw_alloc(); > > __rte_mbuf_raw_free(m); > > > > /* we should do instead (strange): */ > > m = rte_mbuf_raw_alloc(); > > rte_pktmbuf_free(m); > > > > What I suggest to have: > > > > /* allowed, no change */ > > m = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(); > > rte_pktmbuf_free(m); > > > > /* allowed, these functions would be symetrical */ > > m = rte_mbuf_raw_alloc(); > > rte_mbuf_raw_free(m); > > > > /* not allowed, m->refcnt is uninitialized */ > > m = rte_mbuf_raw_alloc(); > > rte_pktmbuf_free(m); > > Hmm, and what it will buy us (except of symmetry)?
API consistency is important. It is a matter of making our users confident in DPDK. I would not like to use a library where I need to check in the doc for each function because I don't remember and I'm not confident that the function fish() do some fishing or hunting.
