2016-06-14 14:20, Hunt, David: > > Hi Thomas, > > On 14/6/2016 1:55 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > 2016-06-14 10:46, David Hunt: > >> Until now, the objects stored in a mempool were internally stored in a > >> ring. This patch introduces the possibility to register external handlers > >> replacing the ring. > >> > >> The default behavior remains unchanged, but calling the new function > >> rte_mempool_set_handler() right after rte_mempool_create_empty() allows > >> the user to change the handler that will be used when populating > >> the mempool. > >> > >> This patch also adds a set of default ops (function callbacks) based > >> on rte_ring. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.com> > >> Signed-off-by: David Hunt <david.hunt at intel.com> > > Glad to see we are close to have this feature integrated. > > > > I've just looked into few details before pushing. > > One of them are the comments. In mempool they were all ended by a dot. > > Please check the new comments. > > Do you mean the rte_mempool struct definition, or all comments? Shall I > leave the > old comments the way they were before the change, or will I clean up? > If I clean up, I'd suggest I add a separate patch for that.
Just check and clean the comments added in this patch. > > The doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst must be updated to remove > > the deprecation notice in this patch. > > Will do. As a separate patch in the set? In this patch. > > Isn't there some explanations to add in > > doc/guides/prog_guide/mempool_lib.rst? > > Yes, I'll adapt some of the cover letter, and add as a separate patch. It is OK (and better) to add it in this patch. Maybe you can request John's help for doc review. > > Isn't there a better name than "default" for the default implementation? > > I don't think the filename rte_mempool_default.c is meaningful. > > I could call it rte_mempool_ring.c? Since the default handler is ring based? It is an idea. Thanks
