[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] doc: announce ABI change for pktmbuf pool create API

[Neil Horman]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 01:51:52PM +0000, Wiles, Keith wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Dec 15, 2017, at 4:41 AM, Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal at 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.agrawal at 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.
+1, that seems like the more flexible solution.
Neil

> 
> > -- 
> > 2.7.4
> > 
> 
> Regards,
> Keith
>