Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] mempool: support external mempool operations

[Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>]

Hi David,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hunt, David [mailto:david.hunt@intel.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 3:05 PM
> To: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>; Jan Viktorin
> <viktorin@rehivetech.com>
> Cc: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 1/3] mempool: support external mempool
> operations
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> On 10/6/2016 8:29 AM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >

[...snip...]
> >
> >
> >> So, the old applications can stay as they are (OK, with a possible
> >> new flag MEMPOOL_F_PKT_ALLOC) and the new one can do the same but you
> >> have to set the ops explicitly.
> >>
> >> The more different ways of using those APIs we have, the greater hell
> >> we have to maintain.
> > I'm really not in favor of a MEMPOOL_F_PKT_ALLOC flag in mempool api.
> 
> I would tend to agree, even though yesterday I proposed making that
> change. However,
> thinking about it some more, I'm not totally happy with the
> MEMPOOL_F_PKT_ALLOC addition. It adds yet another method of creating a
> mempool,
> and I think that may introduce some confusion with some developers.
> 
> I also like the suggestion of rte_pktmbuf_pool_create_<something>(...,
> name) suggested
> above, I was thinking the same myself last night, and I would prefer
> that rather than adding the
> MEMPOOL_F_PKT_ALLOC flag. Developers can add that function into their
> apps as a wrapper
> to rte_mempool_create_empty->rte_mempool_set_ops_byname should the need
> to have
> more than one pktmbuf allocator. Otherwise they can use the one that
> makes use of the
> RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_MEMPOOL_OPS config setting.

+1

> 
> 
> > I think David's patch is already a good step forward. Let's do it
> > step by step. Next step is maybe to update some applications (at least
> > testpmd) to select a new pool handler dynamically.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Olivier

Thanks.

-
Shreyansh