From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <david.hunt@intel.com>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301D5592A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 10:58:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23])
 by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Feb 2016 01:58:55 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,449,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="902817638"
Received: from dhunt5x-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.75])
 ([10.237.220.75])
 by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Feb 2016 01:58:53 -0800
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
 "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
References: <1455039006-86816-1-git-send-email-keith.wiles@intel.com>
 <56BDEA08.9040402@redhat.com>
 <09D5A01F-7205-49E8-9A27-95161235963E@intel.com> <10558998.3znIRhOpQL@xps13>
 <56BDFF2B.5090401@6wind.com>
From: "Hunt, David" <david.hunt@intel.com>
Message-ID: <56C1A15C.8060603@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 09:58:52 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56BDFF2B.5090401@6wind.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 <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: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 09:58:56 -0000

On 12/02/2016 15:50, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> - NEXT_ABI does make the code harder to read in this case, and I'm
>    thinking about the patchset from David Hunt (external mempool handler)
>    that will be in the same situation, and maybe also another patchset
>    I'm working on.

Olivier,
     I'm working on that at the moment with the external mempool handler 
code. However, it crossed my mind that we have a choice to use symbol 
versioning OR use NEXT_ABI. Would one method be preferred over the other?
Regards,
David.