[dpdk-dev] usages issue with external mempool

Hemant Agrawal hemant.agrawal at nxp.com
Wed Jul 27 15:23:54 CEST 2016


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> 2016-07-27 15:21, Jerin Jacob:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:11:13AM +0000, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
> > > This is not a user friendly approach to ask for changing 1 API to 6 new APIs.
> Or, am I missing something?
> >
> > I agree, To me, this is very bad. I have raised this concern earlier
> > also
> >
> > Since applications like OVS goes through "rte_mempool_create" for even
> > packet buffer pool creation. IMO it make senses to extend
> > "rte_mempool_create" to take one more argument to provide external
> > pool handler name(NULL for default). I don't see any valid technical
> > reason to treat external pool handler based mempool creation API
> > different from default handler.

[Hemant] It is better. 
However, I will also suggest to upgrade "rte_pktmbuf_pool_create" with obj_init, this will create consistency in applications to use it instead of using rte_mempool_create.

> >
> > Oliver, David
> >
> > Thoughts ?
> >
> > If we agree on this then may be I can send the API deprecation notices
> > for rte_mempool_create for v16.11
> 
> It would have been a lot better to send a patch during the 16.07 cycle to avoid
> breaking again the API.
> I'm afraid it will even be too late for the deprecation notice.

[Hemant] Yes! It is late. 
 we can make these changes immediately after 16.07.


More information about the dev mailing list