From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <david.hunt@intel.com>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AECFA95D6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 11:21:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26])
 by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Feb 2016 02:21:09 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,449,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="915201995"
Received: from dhunt5x-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.75])
 ([10.237.220.75])
 by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Feb 2016 02:21:08 -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> <56C1A15C.8060603@intel.com>
 <56C1A53A.8010607@6wind.com>
From: "Hunt, David" <david.hunt@intel.com>
Message-ID: <56C1A693.4070002@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 10:21:07 +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: <56C1A53A.8010607@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 10:21:11 -0000

On 15/02/2016 10:15, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 02/15/2016 10:58 AM, Hunt, David wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I think symbol versioning should always be preferred when possible.
>
> In your case, as far as I remember, your are updating the rte_mempool
> structure, which is accessed by static inline functions. I don't think
> it is easily manageable with symbol versioning. Moreover, the ABI will
> already be broken by Keith's patch, so I think it's less problematic
> to have other patches breaking the ABI at the same time.

OK, Thanks for that. I'll use NEXT_ABI in this case so. :)

Regards,
David.