Hi Hemant, On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 05:17:17PM +0530, Hemant Agrawal wrote: > On 1/16/2018 8:31 PM, Olivier Matz wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:41:09AM +0530, Hemant Agrawal wrote: > > > W.r.t the multiple discussions in the past about the ability to > > > dynamically detect the HW mempool support. [1],[2] & [3] > > > > > > This patchset helps in removing the current static mempool selection > > > model and provides a flexible model to select the pktmbuf mempool > > > in more dynamic way. > > > > > > 1) This patchset updates the hw mempool on the basis of device probe()), > > > thus avoiding the need to specify the hw mempool in config file and > > > focing different binaries for diffirent config architectures. > > > 2) Selection of mempool ops though --mbuf-pool-ops-name (cmd line arg) > > > which can overridden the scheme(1) > > > 3) A new best mempool ops selection logic. > > > 4) A new wrapper for the pktmbuf_pool_create helper to take mempool ops > > > name as an argument as well. > > > > > > *Limitations and open points* > > > > > > It was suggested to add all APIs in librte_mbuf, currently internal_config > > > is storing the mempool_ops names. So internal_config is exported in this > > > patchset. An alternate would be to keep these APIs in eal only and access > > > them indirectly from librte_mbuf. > > > > Instead of storing the mempool_ops name in internal config, can't it be > > stored inside librte_mbuf? The eal code can call > > rte_mbuf_set_user_mempool_ops(name) while parsing the arguments. > > I doubt that eal can call mbuf APIs. It will be a issue in shared build?
You are right. The proper way is maybe to keep the parsing in eal, and at librte_mbuf initialization, query the eal library to get the user pool if any. After that, all will be managed inside librte_mbuf. So the eal lib will only do the argument parsing. This is maybe what you already did in the v3 you just submitted, I'll manage to have a look at it today. Thanks, Olivier
