> On Dec 15, 2017, at 4:41 AM, Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com> wrote: > > Introduce a new argument ops_name in rte_mempool_set_ops_byname > for allowing the application to optionally specify the mempool ops. > > Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com> > --- > v2: fix checkpatch error > > doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > index 13e8543..968ca14 100644 > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > @@ -53,3 +53,6 @@ Deprecation Notices > > * librte_meter: The API will change to accommodate configuration profiles. > Most of the API functions will have an additional opaque parameter. > + > +* librte_mbuf: a new optional parameter for representing name of mempool_ops > + will be added to the API ``rte_pktmbuf_pool_create``.
Sorry, for the late response I was on vacation. My question is why do we need to change rte_pktmbuf_pool_create ABI yet again, why could we not add a new API to just set the name of the pool after it is created. This would allow all current applications to work without any ABI breakage and only require adding a new API call for anyone that wants the name. The rte_pktmbuf_pool_create() routine could assign a default name or some incrementing style name as the default. e.g. ‘pktmbuf_%d’ with a static incrementing variable or whatever you like. Sorry if this was asked and answered before. > -- > 2.7.4 > Regards, Keith
