From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41ED05A43 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 18:26:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2015 09:26:32 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,463,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="763561404" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.67]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 13 Jul 2015 09:26:30 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:26:29 +0025 Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:26:29 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20150713162629.GC6932@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1436571020-16252-1-git-send-email-pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com> <20150713161154.GA6932@bricha3-MOBL3> <20150713161420.GB6932@bricha3-MOBL3> <8164644.CYfKgKpKoo@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8164644.CYfKgKpKoo@xps13> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/7] hash: replace existing hash library with cuckoo hash implementation 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: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:26:33 -0000 On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 06:20:08PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-07-13 17:14, Bruce Richardson: > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 05:11:54PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:29:53AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 2015-07-11 01:18, Pablo de Lara: > > > > > The main change when creating a new table is that the number of entries > > > > > per bucket is fixed now, so its parameter is ignored now > > > > > (still there to maintain the same parameters structure). > > > > > > > > Why not rename the "bucket_entries" field to "reserved"? > > > > The API of this field has changed (now ignored) so it should be reflected > > > > without changing the ABI. > > > > > > Since the hash_create function is itself already versionned to take account of the > > > new struct parameter, there is no reason to keep the field at all, as far as I can see. > > > We can just drop it, and let the ABI versionning handle the change. > > > > > > /Bruce > > > > Sorry, my mistake. It's no longer versioned in the patchset that was merged, so > > the field does need to be kept. :-( > > So do you agree to submit a patch which rename the unused field? Yes. It should be in your inbox now... :-)