From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D165137C for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:31:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from was59-1-82-226-113-214.fbx.proxad.net ([82.226.113.214] helo=[192.168.0.10]) by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aVIKo-0003T1-1M; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:32:58 +0100 To: "Hunt, David" , Thomas Monjalon , "Wiles, Keith" 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> <56C1A693.4070002@intel.com> From: Olivier MATZ X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56C1C522.5090804@6wind.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:31:30 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56C1A693.4070002@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:31:38 -0000 Hi David, On 02/15/2016 11:21 AM, Hunt, David wrote: > On 15/02/2016 10:15, Olivier MATZ wrote: >> On 02/15/2016 10:58 AM, Hunt, David wrote: >>> 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. :) Just to let you know in case you missed it: Keith's patch (v3 [1] and v4 [2]) finally does not have the NEXT_ABI ifdefs, because it was too heavy. So for your patches it will also depend on the complexity of the changes. You can have a try with NEXT_ABI and see if the code is still maintainable or not. If not, the process is to push a deprecation notice for 16.04 and the code for 16.07. Regards, Olivier [1] v3: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033004.html [2] v4: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033102.html