Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: remove inconsistent assert statements

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2016-06-09 13:21, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> > Today:
> > 
> >   /* allowed */
> >   m = rte_pktmbuf_alloc();
> >   rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
> > 
> >   /* not allowed */
> >   m = rte_mbuf_raw_alloc();
> >   __rte_mbuf_raw_free(m);
> > 
> >   /* we should do instead (strange): */
> >   m = rte_mbuf_raw_alloc();
> >   rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
> > 
> > What I suggest to have:
> > 
> >   /* allowed, no change */
> >   m = rte_pktmbuf_alloc();
> >   rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
> > 
> >   /* allowed, these functions would be symetrical */
> >   m = rte_mbuf_raw_alloc();
> >   rte_mbuf_raw_free(m);
> > 
> >   /* not allowed, m->refcnt is uninitialized */
> >   m = rte_mbuf_raw_alloc();
> >   rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
> 
> Hmm, and what it will buy us (except of symmetry)?

API consistency is important.
It is a matter of making our users confident in DPDK.

I would not like to use a library where I need to check in the doc
for each function because I don't remember and I'm not confident
that the function fish() do some fishing or hunting.