On 17/6/2016 9:08 AM, Olivier Matz wrote: > Hi David, > > On 06/17/2016 08:58 AM, Hunt, David wrote: >> A comment below: >> >> On 16/6/2016 1:30 PM, David Hunt wrote: >>> +/** >>> + * Set the ops of a mempool. >>> + * >>> + * This can only be done on a mempool that is not populated, i.e. >>> just after >>> + * a call to rte_mempool_create_empty(). >>> + * >>> + * @param mp >>> + * Pointer to the memory pool. >>> + * @param name >>> + * Name of the ops structure to use for this mempool. >> + * @param pool_config >> + * Opaque data that can be used by the ops functions. >>> + * @return >>> + * - 0: Success; the mempool is now using the requested ops functions. >>> + * - -EINVAL - Invalid ops struct name provided. >>> + * - -EEXIST - mempool already has an ops struct assigned. >>> + */ >>> +int >>> +rte_mempool_set_ops_byname(struct rte_mempool *mp, const char *name, >>> + void *pool_config); >>> + >> > The changes related to the pool_config look good to me. > > If you plan to do a v14 for this API comment, I'm wondering if the > documentation could be slightly modified too. I think "external mempool > manager" was the legacy name for the feature, but maybe it could be > changed in "alternative mempool handlers" or "changing the mempool > handler". I mean the word "external" is probably not appropriate now, > especially if we add other handlers in the mempool lib. > > My 2 cents, > Olivier
I had not planned on doing another revision. And I think the term "External Mempool Manager" accurately describes the functionality, so I'd really prefer to leave it as it is. Regards, David.
