Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 5/6] mempool: add namespace to driver register macro

From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
	David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
	Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>,
	"Artem V. Andreev" <artem.andreev@oktetlabs.ru>,
	Ashwin Sekhar T K <asekhar@marvell.com>,
	Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>,
	Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
	Sachin Saxena <sachin.saxena@oss.nxp.com>,
	Harman Kalra <hkalra@marvell.com>,
	Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>,
	Nithin Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>, dev <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 5/6] mempool: add namespace to driver register macro
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:42:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <408661365.SrHDaeAMXg@thomas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJFAV8y-zFZ7w2AKfoEhJVMy9AXjZJOmLefBm9_Cw+gj1CKOKw@mail.gmail.com>

19/10/2021 11:27, David Marchand:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 11:05 AM Andrew Rybchenko
> <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/19/21 11:49 AM, David Marchand wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 4:50 PM Andrew Rybchenko
> > > <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Add RTE_ prefix to macro used to register mempool driver.
> > >> The old one is still available but deprecated.
> > >
> > > ODP seems to use its own mempools.
> > >
> > > $ git grep-all -w MEMPOOL_REGISTER_OPS
> > > OpenDataplane/platform/linux-generic/pktio/dpdk.c:MEMPOOL_REGISTER_OPS(odp_pool_ops);
> > >
> > > I'd say it counts as a driver macro.
> > > If so, we could hide it in a driver-only header, along with
> > > rte_mempool_register_ops getting marked as internal.
> > >
> > > $ git grep-all -w rte_mempool_register_ops
> > > FD.io-VPP/src/plugins/dpdk/buffer.c:  rte_mempool_register_ops (&ops);
> > > FD.io-VPP/src/plugins/dpdk/buffer.c:  rte_mempool_register_ops (&ops);
> >
> > Do I understand correctly that it is required to remove it from
> > stable ABI/API, but still allow external SW to use it?
> >
> > Should I add one more patch to the series?
> 
> If we want to do the full job, we need to inspect driver-only symbols
> in rte_mempool.h.
> But this goes way further than a simple prefixing as this series intended.
> 
> I just read your reply, I think we agree.
> Let's go with simple prefix and take a note to cleanup in the future.

Yes, and we should probably discuss in techboard what should be kept
compatible for external mempool drivers.