On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:57 PM Bruce Richardson < bruce.richard...@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
