Hi David,
Thanks for you comments.
On 03/05, David Marchand wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 9:13 AM Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> This give the option that applicaiton can configure each
>> memory chunk's size precisely. (by MEMPOOL_F_NO_SPREAD).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong...@intel.com>
>>
>
>Cc: maintainer
>
>---
>> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
>> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 8 +++++++-
>> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c
>> index 21f6f7404..0f6fcff28 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c
>> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c
>> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ rte_pktmbuf_init(struct rte_mempool *mp,
>> struct rte_mempool *
>> rte_pktmbuf_pool_create_by_ops(const char *name, unsigned int n,
>> unsigned int cache_size, uint16_t priv_size, uint16_t
>> data_room_size,
>> - int socket_id, const char *ops_name)
>> + unsigned int flags, int socket_id, const char *ops_name)
>> {
>> struct rte_mempool *mp;
>> struct rte_pktmbuf_pool_private mbp_priv;
>>
>
>You can't do that, rte_pktmbuf_pool_create_by_ops is exposed to the user
>apps and part of the ABI.
>You must define a new internal fonction that takes this flag, keeps the
>existing interface and add your new experimental api.
>
In this case, if I define a new function that takes the flag, it seems would
have a lot of duplicated code with rte_pktmbuf_pool_create_by_ops, do you have
any suggestions for better handling?
Thanks,
Xiaolong
>
>--
>David Marchand
