From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mempool: reduce rte_mempool structure size
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:19:52 +0200
Message-ID: <56BDEA08.9040402@redhat.com>
References: <1455039006-86816-1-git-send-email-keith.wiles@intel.com>
 <1455139134-9826-1-git-send-email-keith.wiles@intel.com>
 <56BDC0C1.9010506@redhat.com> <1637610.sEJPJ7NIGK@xps13>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
 Keith Wiles <keith.wiles@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4619D93FA
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:19:55 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <1637610.sEJPJ7NIGK@xps13>
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 02/12/2016 03:57 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-02-12 13:23, Panu Matilainen:
>> On 02/10/2016 11:18 PM, Keith Wiles wrote:
>>>    static inline void *rte_mempool_get_priv(struct rte_mempool *mp)
>>>    {
>>> +#ifdef RTE_NEXT_ABI
>>> +	return (char *)mp +
>>> +		MEMPOOL_HEADER_SIZE(mp, mp->pg_num, mp->cache_size);
>>> +#else
>>>    	return (char *)mp + MEMPOOL_HEADER_SIZE(mp, mp->pg_num);
>>> +#endif /* RTE_NEXT_ABI */
>>>    }
>>
>> This is not RTE_NEXT_ABI material IMO, the added ifdef clutter is just
>> too much.
>
> The changes are restricted to the mempool files.
> I think it is not so much. However I wonder how much the feature is important
> to justify the use of NEXT_ABI.

Well yes, to be precise: for the benefit of this patch, the ifdef 
clutter seems too much.

Its not as if every change is expected to go through a NEXT_ABI phase, 
based on http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/032866.html there 
might be some confusion regarding that.

>
>> I'd suggest adding a deprecation notice for the change now and after
>> 16.04 is released, just resend the patch without messing with RTE_NEXT_ABI.
>
> When adding a deprecation notice, it is really better to provide a reference
> to the code change.
> So if you give up with NEXT_ABI, please add a link to this code change in
> the new commit message. Thanks
>

Nod.

	- Panu -