From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 523447CC5 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:07:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [37.168.106.214] (helo=droids-corp.org) by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fBnBC-00036A-VC; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:07:48 +0200 Received: by droids-corp.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:07:37 +0200 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:07:37 +0200 From: Olivier Matz To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Andrew Rybchenko , Yongseok Koh , wenzhuo.lu@intel.com, jingjing.wu@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com, nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com Message-ID: <20180426200737.hhgj4pkvs2qc63bw@neon> References: <20180310012532.15809-1-yskoh@mellanox.com> <1854520.Legm0nyyME@xps> <20180426194208.vm7rr5svn6xq7ki5@neon> <3222860.1kATvoXXQV@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3222860.1kATvoXXQV@xps> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/2] mbuf: support attaching external buffer to mbuf X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 20:07:46 -0000 On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 09:58:00PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 26/04/2018 21:42, Olivier Matz: > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 06:10:36PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 26/04/2018 18:05, Andrew Rybchenko: > > > > On 04/26/2018 04:10 AM, Yongseok Koh wrote: > > > > > -#define RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(mb) ((mb)->ol_flags & IND_ATTACHED_MBUF) > > > > > +#define RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(mb) RTE_MBUF_CLONED(mb) > > > > > > > > We have discussed that it would be good to deprecate RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT() > > > > since it is not !RTE_MBUF_DIREC(). Is it lost here or intentional (may > > > > be I've lost > > > > in the thread)? > > > > > > I think it should be a separate deprecation notice. > > > > Agree with Andrew that RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT should be deprecated > > to avoid confusion with !DIRECT. > > What do you mean? > We should add a comment? Or poisoining the macro? Or something else? > Should it be removed? In which release? Sorry if I was not clear. Not necessarly remove the macro for this release. But I think we should announce it and remove it, following the process. I suggest: - for 18.05: send the deprecation notice + add a comment in the .h saying that the macro will be deprecated in 18.08 (or 18.11, there is no hurry if there is the comment) - for 18.08 (or 18.11): remove the macro (I don't think poisoining is useful in this case).