[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 7/7] ethdev: use opaque user callback object

[Bruce Richardson]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 11:22:12AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson
> > Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 10:33 AM
> > To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; dev at dpdk.org; vladz at cloudius-systems.com
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 7/7] ethdev: use opaque user callback object
> > 
> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:29:57AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > > "struct rte_eth_rxtx_callback" is defined as internal data structure but
> > > used in public APIs.
> > >
> > > Checking the API documentation shows that intention was using this
> > > object as opaque object. Data structure only used in delete APIs which
> > > doesn't require to know the internals of the data structure.
> > >
> > > Converting callback parameter in API to void pointer should not require
> > > any modification in user application because this data structure was
> > > already marked as internal and only should be used as pointer in
> > > application.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > I disagree on this patch. The structure itself is not exposed, only the
> > name, since it is only passed around as a pointer, so there is no need
> > to change the parameters to void pointer. It's a named opaque type.
> 
> Personally I think it would be better to do visa-versa: 
> make rte_eth_add_(rx|tx)_callback() to return struct rte_eth_rxtx_callback *
> instead of void *.
> Konstantin
> 
I didn't realise that it did, so definite +1 to that suggestion.