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

Wiles, Keith keith.wiles at intel.com
Mon Dec 18 14:51:52 CET 2017



> 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.

> -- 
> 2.7.4
> 

Regards,
Keith



More information about the dev mailing list