Hi,
On 05/31/2016 03:47 PM, Hunt, David wrote:
> On 5/31/2016 1:06 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 May 2016 10:09:42 +0100
>> "Hunt, David" <david.hunt at intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The *p pointer is the opaque data for a given mempool handler (ring,
>>> array, linked list, etc)
>> Again, doc comments...
>>
>> I don't like the obj_table representation to be an array of void *. I
>> could see
>> it already in DPDK for defining Ethernet driver queues, so, it's
>> probably not
>> an issue. I just say, I would prefer some basic type safety like
>>
>> struct rte_mempool_obj {
>> void *p;
>> };
>>
>> Is there somebody with different opinions?
>>
>> [...]
>
> Comments added. I've left as a void* for the moment.
Jan, could you please detail why you think having a
rte_mempool_obj structure brings more safety?
For now, I'm in favor of keeping the array of void *, because
that's what we use in other mempool or ring functions.
>>>>> +/** Structure defining a mempool handler. */
>>>> Later in the text, I suggested to rename rte_mempool_handler to
>>>> rte_mempool_ops.
>>>> I believe that it explains the purpose of this struct better. It
>>>> would improve
>>>> consistency in function names (the *_ext_* mark is very strange and
>>>> inconsistent).
>>> I agree. I've gone through all the code and renamed to
>>> rte_mempool_handler_ops.
>> Ok. I meant rte_mempool_ops because I find the word "handler" to be
>> redundant.
>
> I prefer the use of the word handler, unless others also have opinions
> either way?
Well, I think rte_mempool_ops is clear enough, and shorter,
so I'd vote for it.
Regards,
Olivier
