On 12/18/2017 7:21 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:

quoted

On Dec 15, 2017, at 4:41 AM, Hemant Agrawal [off-list ref] wrote:

Introduce a new argument ops_name in rte_mempool_set_ops_byname
for allowing the application to optionally specify the mempool ops.

Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <redacted>
---
v2: fix checkpatch error

doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
index 13e8543..968ca14 100644
--- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
+++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst

@@ -53,3 +53,6 @@ Deprecation Notices

* librte_meter: The API will change to accommodate configuration profiles.
  Most of the API functions will have an additional opaque parameter.
+
+* librte_mbuf: a new optional parameter for representing name of mempool_ops
+  will be added to the API ``rte_pktmbuf_pool_create``.

Sorry, for the late response I was on vacation.

My question is why do we need to change rte_pktmbuf_pool_create ABI yet again, why could we not add a new API to just set the name of the pool after it is created. This would allow all current applications to work without any ABI breakage and only require adding a new API call for anyone that wants the name. The rte_pktmbuf_pool_create() routine could assign a default name or some incrementing style name as the default. e.g. ‘pktmbuf_%d’ with a static incrementing variable or whatever you like.

Sorry if this was asked and answered before.

I understand the concerns.

However, the new API to just set the name will not work post create.
rte_pktmbuf_pool_create is a wrapper API, which complete the mempool 
configuration on the basis default mempool_ops.

The idea proposed is to create pktmbuf pool from a specific mempool 
(ops_name).

We can leave "rte_pktmbuf_pool_create" as it is.
and create another similar API with e.g. 
"rte_pktmbuf_pool_create_specific", which will also take ops_name as 
argument.  (We can combine the internal implementation with NULL 
ops_name for rte_pktmbuf_pool_create.)

This way we will have flexibility for the applications looking for 
pktmbufs from a specific mempool.

any thoughts?

Hemant

quoted

--
2.7.4

Regards,
Keith