> On Dec 18, 2017, at 11:40 PM, Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com> wrote: > > 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.
Really can not add the name after the fact, I have not looked, but it seem very odd we can not use the mempool pointer and update the ops_name. What is stopping this from working? > > 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.) I would accept this approach over the original patch to change the name of a commonly used API. > > This way we will have flexibility for the applications looking for pktmbufs > from a specific mempool. > > any thoughts? > > Hemant > >>> -- >>> 2.7.4 >>> >> >> Regards, >> Keith Regards, Keith
