From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4EF374D for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 12:00:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id f65so206121809wmi.0 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 03:00:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oBM1XI4NBGJIGodYQAlOrocHtzdNyakwryekos84dE8=; b=vGY9H+zZsYjS2jE0zzsgO7hD8hZctJ6GsZ6aL/hh4p9Oz2R+z+kxTAc/HjbtZtjSXX ET2/v8u5BzS1Elsa+QfzF3fFL6LHqOmPYPPO0iaEePxvIPUEYn8iPumaaM6XXF2R740y giYAQp8c8NzIqnOBA0kxusRio3Dv3WiAy8IyJBlBhuEzaF8jCBMfNrSzfQIXcDLbskZ5 MhRmzP4H5jT1Xa+/l4qfCh6QKLPD49HKDWbui01UNuimkv1/JPH9GD+IEDor61UNaD11 yV5vUJ0FZx7AXhRWx279MVDf6N6/rHIulGtkiudFU4SsFabq+y2EwDIkDZo2DAXoM1mz MBKg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oBM1XI4NBGJIGodYQAlOrocHtzdNyakwryekos84dE8=; b=dJ4HnXLPCO4oAoBOh8KtlIZnzdsMzP9TfU82G/5saL3hO0K3l0T7UWAVJstanKuDdu N1nVCG4IvmnYbu+RPrfLR+BkVmUqoo52ik6O4JqR8tjC+2FJCgEqZdt4Eub5r8y10F/H VW1LpRXzMEefu56Cp6uoqU6Z+5lXut6BDEgEapd+l+mzmDyyB584n3qazRPSQ7gFzWVU VKOJpSd8ZPpYjGmsVD1iBEDmanmFHWTXzHX7Lz0CMcB0AD90JwspER8a7IiOPU/69s9v NdYbJmkEm+uiwWUlkaaLIOxB8IuIQ1lYBsWedOt0Br6FqHeZaX9nnB7+Wts97CJ8FPxp JKbw== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouuzSIEzXyeaFslRhZSuFq4hs9QQEBH94EOI7wSZjF8gtvIDETW+73vLsigfssPW+PC+ X-Received: by 10.194.148.81 with SMTP id tq17mr26142936wjb.67.1469613636048; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 03:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f187sm6280284wmf.15.2016.07.27.03.00.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Jul 2016 03:00:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Jerin Jacob , Hemant Agrawal Cc: David Hunt , dev@dpdk.org, "olivier.matz@6wind.com" , "viktorin@rehivetech.com" , Shreyansh Jain Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 12:00:34 +0200 Message-ID: <1626416.VyKLPpZHgH@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20160727095128.GA11679@localhost.localdomain> References: <20160727095128.GA11679@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] usages issue with external mempool X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:00:36 -0000 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. > > 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.