On 12/18/2017 7:21 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
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.
I understand the concerns.
However, the new API to just set the name will not work post create.
rte_pktmbuf_pool_create is a wrapper API, which complete the mempool
configuration on the basis default mempool_ops.
The idea proposed is to create pktmbuf pool from a specific mempool
(ops_name).
We can leave "rte_pktmbuf_pool_create" as it is.
and create another similar API with e.g.
"rte_pktmbuf_pool_create_specific", which will also take ops_name as
argument. (We can combine the internal implementation with NULL
ops_name for rte_pktmbuf_pool_create.)
This way we will have flexibility for the applications looking for
pktmbufs from a specific mempool.
any thoughts?
Hemant
--
2.7.4
Regards,
Keith
