Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/6] eal/memory: rename memory API to iova types

[santosh <santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>]

On Friday 03 November 2017 04:41 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 20/10/2017 14:31, Santosh Shukla:
>> Renamed memory translational api to _iova types.
>> The following api renamed from:
>>
>> rte_mempool_populate_phys()
>> rte_mempool_populate_phys_tab()
> These functions still have "physical addresses" in their description.
> It is not consistent.
>
> Please provide ABI compatibility for mempool functions.
>
>> rte_eal_using_phys_addrs()
> Why renaming rte_eal_using_phys_addrs?
> I think we need to review how it is used.
> Maybe it requires a rework.
>
>> rte_mem_virt2phy()
>> rte_dump_physmem_layout()
>> rte_eal_get_physmem_layout()
>> rte_eal_get_physmem_size()
> Those 3 functions deal with physical memory layout.
> I don't see a need to rename them.

In iova=va mode, those api will have va address.

> But the dump function needs a change to avoid printing
> "phys" even in VA case.
>
>> rte_malloc_virt2phy()
>> rte_mem_phy2mch()
> This last function was removed with Xen.
> It is wrong to rename it in the release notes.
> It should just be removed from the map file (I will send a patch).
>
>> To the following iova types api:
>>
>> rte_mempool_populate_iova()
>> rte_mempool_populate_iova_tab()
>> rte_eal_using_iova_addrs()
>> rte_mem_virt2iova()
> [...]
>> rte_malloc_virt2iova()
> I am not convinced by the names virt2iova.
> I sounds like "virt to virt".
> What about "virt2io" or "virt2io_addr"?

no, iova can be _pa or _va, its an io_addr indeed but
I prefer virt2iova, same mentioned in deprecation notice (no strong opinion),

More suggestion on naming pl.?

> As the ABI is broken in EAL 17.11, we do not care about compatibility.
> But we must keep an alias to the old function name in order to allow
> a smooth API transition for applications.
> I suggest to add static inline functions with the old names and set
> the deprecated attribute.

ok, Will address in 18.02.

Thanks.