From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4619D93FA for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:19:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4DD18E928; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:19:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sopuli.koti.laiskiainen.org (vpn1-4-99.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.4.99]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1CEJre0010710; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:19:53 -0500 To: Thomas Monjalon , Keith Wiles References: <1455039006-86816-1-git-send-email-keith.wiles@intel.com> <1455139134-9826-1-git-send-email-keith.wiles@intel.com> <56BDC0C1.9010506@redhat.com> <1637610.sEJPJ7NIGK@xps13> From: Panu Matilainen Message-ID: <56BDEA08.9040402@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:19:52 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1637610.sEJPJ7NIGK@xps13> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.26 Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] mempool: reduce rte_mempool structure size 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: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:19:55 -0000 On 02/12/2016 03:57 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-02-12 13:23, Panu Matilainen: >> On 02/10/2016 11:18 PM, Keith Wiles wrote: >>> static inline void *rte_mempool_get_priv(struct rte_mempool *mp) >>> { >>> +#ifdef RTE_NEXT_ABI >>> + return (char *)mp + >>> + MEMPOOL_HEADER_SIZE(mp, mp->pg_num, mp->cache_size); >>> +#else >>> return (char *)mp + MEMPOOL_HEADER_SIZE(mp, mp->pg_num); >>> +#endif /* RTE_NEXT_ABI */ >>> } >> >> This is not RTE_NEXT_ABI material IMO, the added ifdef clutter is just >> too much. > > The changes are restricted to the mempool files. > I think it is not so much. However I wonder how much the feature is important > to justify the use of NEXT_ABI. Well yes, to be precise: for the benefit of this patch, the ifdef clutter seems too much. Its not as if every change is expected to go through a NEXT_ABI phase, based on http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/032866.html there might be some confusion regarding that. > >> I'd suggest adding a deprecation notice for the change now and after >> 16.04 is released, just resend the patch without messing with RTE_NEXT_ABI. > > When adding a deprecation notice, it is really better to provide a reference > to the code change. > So if you give up with NEXT_ABI, please add a link to this code change in > the new commit message. Thanks > Nod. - Panu -