From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mem: add API to obstain memory-backed
 file info
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:13:21 +0000
Message-ID: <56950A01.1010508@intel.com>
References: <1446748276-132087-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
 <1452426182-86851-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
 <1452426182-86851-3-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
 <CAGSMBPNeAt9a3kpiJmP=zVwEhoHeBbLfe7baBq8msfitqAb6+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5694C36D.2040006@intel.com> <00d501d14d20$930c8ae0$b925a0a0$@samsung.com>
 <5694D9E9.6060704@intel.com> <00de01d14d28$7c2eaf80$748c0e80$@samsung.com>
 <5694DE7C.4050206@intel.com> <00e301d14d2d$ad9cb350$08d619f0$@samsung.com>
 <5694EDA4.9030202@intel.com> <00ed01d14d41$278cd8d0$76a68a70$@samsung.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: nakajima.yoshihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp, "'Michael S. Tsirkin'" <mst@redhat.com>,
 dev@dpdk.org, ann.zhuangyanying@huawei.com
To: Pavel Fedin <p.fedin@samsung.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE1A8E72
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:13:25 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <00ed01d14d41$278cd8d0$76a68a70$@samsung.com>
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>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 12/01/2016 13:57, Pavel Fedin wrote:
>   Hello!
>
>> I might be missing something obvious here but, aside from having memory
>> SHARED which most DPDK apps using hugepages will have anyway, what is
>> the backward compatibility issues that you see here?
>   Heh, sorry once again for confusing. Indeed, with hugepages we always get MAP_SHARED. I missed that. So, we indeed need
> --shared-mem only in addition to --no-huge.
>
>   Backwards compatibility issue is stated in the description of PATCH 1/4:
> --- cut ---
> b. possible ABI break, originally, --no-huge uses anonymous memory
> instead of file-backed way to create memory.
> --- cut ---
>   The patch unconditionally changes that to SHARED. That's all.

I should read more carefully!
Sorry about that, I thought you were the one with the ABI concerns.

Regarding ABI, I don't think there is any ABI issue with the change, we 
just have our memory file-backed and SHARED but we do that when using 
hugepages so I don't think it would be a huge issue.
But if folks have concerns about it, we could always keep old behavior 
by default and, as you suggest, introduce another option for changing 
the flag.

Sergio
> Kind regards,
> Pavel Fedin
> Senior Engineer
> Samsung Electronics Research center Russia
>
>