[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/5] eal: add platform mempool ops name in internal config

[Hemant Agrawal]

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?


>
>>  	rte_hypervisor_get;
>>  	rte_hypervisor_get_name;
>>
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
>