On 12/4/2017 2:31 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 03:51:52PM -0800, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >> On 12/1/2017 5:17 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 11:22:12AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 10:33 AM >>>>> To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> >>>>> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org; >>>>> vl...@cloudius-systems.com >>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 7/7] ethdev: use opaque user callback >>>>> object >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:29:57AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>>>>> "struct rte_eth_rxtx_callback" is defined as internal data structure but >>>>>> used in public APIs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Checking the API documentation shows that intention was using this >>>>>> object as opaque object. Data structure only used in delete APIs which >>>>>> doesn't require to know the internals of the data structure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Converting callback parameter in API to void pointer should not require >>>>>> any modification in user application because this data structure was >>>>>> already marked as internal and only should be used as pointer in >>>>>> application. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> I disagree on this patch. The structure itself is not exposed, only the >>>>> name, since it is only passed around as a pointer, so there is no need >>>>> to change the parameters to void pointer. It's a named opaque type. >>>> >>>> Personally I think it would be better to do visa-versa: >>>> make rte_eth_add_(rx|tx)_callback() to return struct rte_eth_rxtx_callback >>>> * >>>> instead of void *. >>>> Konstantin >>>> >>> I didn't realise that it did, so definite +1 to that suggestion. >> >> No issue on having a named opaque type, but unfortunately struct is exposed >> because of inline functions again. >> It has been moved into rte_ethdev_core.h but accessible by applications. >> >> And since intention is an opaque type, because of "void *" return types, I >> thought it is better to hide type completely so that application can't access >> details. > > I wouldn't be worried about applications being able to get into the > structure. The only compelling reason for me to make the type opaque > would be for ABI compatibility, and since that is not a factor here, I > don't see the point in changing it to a void *.
OK, I will update as suggested. > > /Bruce >
