From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mbuf: add function returning default
 buffer address
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 13:48:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJFAV8yVnwfwvpRvW1U6XfrF7VsMKW3xndL1q_JyB4qyJXD7AA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20190109085426.39965-1-yskoh@mellanox.com>
 <20190110183528.42503-1-yskoh@mellanox.com>
 <2934bc73-98e6-643a-0d61-cf7804e1535d@solarflare.com>
 <20190111110332.GA8355@minint-98vp2qg>
 <27206464-dcf0-9871-a797-cb0b9f2ff25d@solarflare.com>
 <20190111115701.GB3336@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>,
 "olivier.matz@6wind.com" <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
 Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "roszenrami@gmail.com" <roszenrami@gmail.com>,
 Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-ua1-f68.google.com (mail-ua1-f68.google.com
 [209.85.222.68]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74591BBFE
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 13:48:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-ua1-f68.google.com with SMTP id t8so4722176uap.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 04:48:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20190111115701.GB3336@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:57 PM Bruce Richardson <
bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 02:17:04PM +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> > Olivier, David,
> >
> > could you take a look at naming suggested below and share your thoughts.
> > My fear is that rte_mbuf_buf_addr() is too generic and true for direct
> mbuf
> > only. That's why I'd like to highlight it in the function name.
> >
>
> I would tend to agree with that concern.
>

I understand your concern as well.

The only usecase we have so far is for drivers on the rx side, so
implicitely direct mbufs.
But from a api user pov, explicit is always better.

I will let Olivier have the last word :-)


-- 
David Marchand