From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <david.hunt@intel.com>
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE735592
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat,  7 May 2016 01:02:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26])
 by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 May 2016 16:02:31 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,588,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="974398285"
Received: from dhunt5-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [134.134.171.65])
 ([134.134.171.65])
 by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 May 2016 16:02:30 -0700
To: "Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>, olivier.matz@6wind.com
References: <1462472982-49782-1-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com>
 <68b60537-9523-22a7-e0d2-da9f7790f5a6@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
From: "Hunt, David" <david.hunt@intel.com>
Message-ID: <572D2286.2000203@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 16:02:30 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <68b60537-9523-22a7-e0d2-da9f7790f5a6@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] mempool: add stack (fifo) mempool handler
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 23:02:32 -0000



On 5/6/2016 1:34 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>
> On 5/6/2016 2:29 AM, David Hunt wrote:
>> This patch set adds a fifo stack handler to the external mempool
>> manager.
>
> Just a minor confusion for me. Usually, we refer stack as LIFO and 
> queue as FIFO. So is there any particular reason why we call "stack 
> (fifo)" here?
>
> Thanks,
> Jianfeng

Jianfeng,
You are correct. That is a typo. It should read LIFO.
Regards,
Dave.