On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 09:56:36PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> > Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 20:01:14 +0530
> > From: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>
> > To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>
> > CC: dev@dpdk.org, olivier.m...@6wind.com, santosh.shu...@caviumnetworks.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] eal: add platform mempool ops name in internal
> > config
> > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
> > Thunderbird/45.8.0
> >
> > On 1/15/2018 5:54 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > > > static int
> > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_internal_cfg.h
> > > > b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_internal_cfg.h
> > > > index 1169fcc..12c5b8a 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_internal_cfg.h
> > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_internal_cfg.h
> > > > @@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ struct internal_config {
> > > > const char *hugepage_dir; /**< specific hugetlbfs
> > > > directory to use */
> > > > const char *user_mbuf_pool_ops_name;
> > > > /**< user defined mbuf pool ops name */
> > > > + const char *plat_mbuf_pool_ops_name;
> > > > + /**< platform configured mbuf pool ops name */
> > > > unsigned num_hugepage_sizes; /**< how many sizes on this
> > > > system */
> > > > struct hugepage_info hugepage_info[MAX_HUGEPAGE_SIZES];
> > > > };
> > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
> > > > b/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
> > > > index 3fa1e13..909691f 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
> > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
> > > > @@ -203,6 +203,7 @@ DPDK_17.11 {
> > > > DPDK_18.02 {
> > > > global:
> > > >
> > > > + internal_config;
> > >
> > > I think, exposing the internal_config may not be a good idea. We may
> > > need "plat_mbuf_pool_ops_name" value for multi process case too.
> > > Considering the above points, How about adding it in
> > > struct rte_config and then expose too rte_eal_get_configuration()
> > > On the downside, it would be an ABI change.
> >
> > Yes! I was also not sure about exposing internal_config.
> >
> > rte_config is also a good option. If we add these options in the end, it
> > should not break ABI?
>
> I think, it does break the ABI.
What about a new API in librte_mbuf as suggested as a reply to the cover
letter?
