From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com (mail-wm0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F274838EB for ; Tue, 31 May 2016 22:41:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id n184so868908wmn.1 for ; Tue, 31 May 2016 13:41:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=20k//L3/R9woZC6HYJWF3wkqxAoCuu6r5XsQ83O4/yM=; b=Iv6VBi2puWM5U6UjEA82XRXtYPACxeQKhtaxUsXD1POim4tx/lPD5t2YEhyPcesaR9 hNiq4acpLA/WOCfX8r1/+XL+8pXyIbI4+nATGRHp5+YfMZXV+wjS4E38Gdixndry5kYb NF61goVf+Mxcc/jYnRDuT9iiVXSvOwAD6mjrYTtrbzTeYpWAabIs5SqQzlJ5tD45hyR3 xOBUsQH/kBMV1SGdagbT8i2kFIbOeFLJE3Mr3CmhhHGz5JQ7U3SGnTXvPHKkyMnFObdR MhSfJw9Goq5ZF4nl1i0FqyVHliP2Qz3xpvLYwCX3vKHG0qPlFe9Op5eBKnhFqZV3YVQZ aaLQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=20k//L3/R9woZC6HYJWF3wkqxAoCuu6r5XsQ83O4/yM=; b=cJK4SagKdv2Nw1NZlLvlgQvDjY2y921mkXsKtA2HpXoaqBc9GAKCk2ibrJXandsXC9 uf0pRB2Uudd5OIK4syxPcS4JslK9A/0dbw9fACLJ2V2dsU8QdFOTLEqOWibS14JsLJ8+ OqgvQTl56zuiEL2bDCcPv69LEOh3k2v+j+rbl9irjN8mE1wCZX2vMCO1cm/T+NoGoLju Q5x7CDylLtHKBPKkt2dNVcVMP+qL9xRIKDlzxImKM+5XpOEEmaTvDeam3DggEss+2/OX 5m4Jhk+1qCicaOdSWYA9QHvkf/sEVdT/Ri/RHXtLoEYkXG4KO0KRdfY2aV4xNC6N24+3 d/Zg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLveVcEIPOHrBXVtTTvZXMGHYYtHMbxpdSu/zW/ZEVwUeVAVWJzI5tGw26GDmbntWK5 X-Received: by 10.194.19.199 with SMTP id h7mr32164590wje.91.1464727260789; Tue, 31 May 2016 13:41:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.16] (85-171-34-230.rev.numericable.fr. [85.171.34.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q194sm31329800wme.18.2016.05.31.13.40.59 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 31 May 2016 13:41:00 -0700 (PDT) To: "Hunt, David" , Jan Viktorin References: <1463665501-18325-2-git-send-email-david.hunt@intel.com> <20160523143511.7d30699b@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz> <574D54D6.1080409@intel.com> <20160531140652.018a03de@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz> <574D95E9.4020504@intel.com> Cc: dev@dpdk.org, yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com, pmatilai@redhat.com, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com From: Olivier MATZ Message-ID: <574DF6DB.4050905@6wind.com> Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 22:40:59 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <574D95E9.4020504@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-dev,v5,1/3] mempool: support external handler 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: Tue, 31 May 2016 20:41:01 -0000 Hi, On 05/31/2016 03:47 PM, Hunt, David wrote: > On 5/31/2016 1:06 PM, Jan Viktorin wrote: >> On Tue, 31 May 2016 10:09:42 +0100 >> "Hunt, David" wrote: >> >>> The *p pointer is the opaque data for a given mempool handler (ring, >>> array, linked list, etc) >> Again, doc comments... >> >> I don't like the obj_table representation to be an array of void *. I >> could see >> it already in DPDK for defining Ethernet driver queues, so, it's >> probably not >> an issue. I just say, I would prefer some basic type safety like >> >> struct rte_mempool_obj { >> void *p; >> }; >> >> Is there somebody with different opinions? >> >> [...] > > Comments added. I've left as a void* for the moment. Jan, could you please detail why you think having a rte_mempool_obj structure brings more safety? For now, I'm in favor of keeping the array of void *, because that's what we use in other mempool or ring functions. >>>>> +/** Structure defining a mempool handler. */ >>>> Later in the text, I suggested to rename rte_mempool_handler to >>>> rte_mempool_ops. >>>> I believe that it explains the purpose of this struct better. It >>>> would improve >>>> consistency in function names (the *_ext_* mark is very strange and >>>> inconsistent). >>> I agree. I've gone through all the code and renamed to >>> rte_mempool_handler_ops. >> Ok. I meant rte_mempool_ops because I find the word "handler" to be >> redundant. > > I prefer the use of the word handler, unless others also have opinions > either way? Well, I think rte_mempool_ops is clear enough, and shorter, so I'd vote for it. Regards, Olivier