03/11/2017 12:35, santosh: > On Friday 03 November 2017 04:41 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 20/10/2017 14:31, Santosh Shukla: > >> Renamed memory translational api to _iova types. > >> The following api renamed from: > >> > >> rte_mempool_populate_phys() > >> rte_mempool_populate_phys_tab() > > These functions still have "physical addresses" in their description. > > It is not consistent. > > > > Please provide ABI compatibility for mempool functions. > > > >> rte_eal_using_phys_addrs() > > Why renaming rte_eal_using_phys_addrs? > > I think we need to review how it is used. > > Maybe it requires a rework. > > > >> rte_mem_virt2phy() > >> rte_dump_physmem_layout() > >> rte_eal_get_physmem_layout() > >> rte_eal_get_physmem_size() > > Those 3 functions deal with physical memory layout. > > I don't see a need to rename them. > > In iova=va mode, those api will have va address.
Yes addresses can be virtual. But it is still physically segmented. > > But the dump function needs a change to avoid printing > > "phys" even in VA case. > > > >> rte_malloc_virt2phy() > >> rte_mem_phy2mch() > > This last function was removed with Xen. > > It is wrong to rename it in the release notes. > > It should just be removed from the map file (I will send a patch). > > > >> To the following iova types api: > >> > >> rte_mempool_populate_iova() > >> rte_mempool_populate_iova_tab() > >> rte_eal_using_iova_addrs() > >> rte_mem_virt2iova() > > [...] > >> rte_malloc_virt2iova() > > I am not convinced by the names virt2iova. > > I sounds like "virt to virt". > > What about "virt2io" or "virt2io_addr"? > > no, iova can be _pa or _va, its an io_addr indeed but > I prefer virt2iova, same mentioned in deprecation notice (no strong opinion), > > More suggestion on naming pl.? I like virt2io_addr but virt2iova is not so bad. I agree with Santosh that we need more opinions. > > As the ABI is broken in EAL 17.11, we do not care about compatibility. > > But we must keep an alias to the old function name in order to allow > > a smooth API transition for applications. > > I suggest to add static inline functions with the old names and set > > the deprecated attribute. > > ok, Will address in 18.02. I would prefer these changes made in 17.11 as announced. As you are not willing to work on it, I am trying to send some updated patches.
