Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/2] ring: add reset API to flush the ring when not in use

[Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)]

Hi Olivier and Thomas,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2019 10:42 PM
> To: Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) <gavin...@arm.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>; nd
> <n...@arm.com>; jer...@marvell.com; hemant.agra...@nxp.com;
> nipun.gu...@nxp.com; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; i.maxim...@samsung.com;
> sta...@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/2] ring: add reset API to flush the ring
> when not in use
> 
> 29/03/2019 15:17, Olivier Matz:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:31:25AM +0800, Gavin Hu wrote:
> > > Currently, the flush is done by dequeuing the ring in a while loop. It is
> > > much simpler to flush the queue by resetting the head and tail indices.
> > >
> > > Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release")
> > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gavin Hu <gavin...@arm.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > > --- a/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring_version.map
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring_version.map
> > > @@ -17,3 +17,10 @@ DPDK_2.2 {
> > >   rte_ring_free;
> > >
> > >  } DPDK_2.0;
> > > +
> > > +EXPERIMENTAL {
> > > +    global:
> > > +
> > > + rte_ring_reset;
> > > +
> > > +};
> >
> > To me, a static inline function does not need to be added in
> > rte_ring_version.map (or is it due to a check script checking the
> > __rte_experimental tag ?). I found at least one commit where it
> > is not the case:
> > c277b34c1b3b ("mbuf: add function returning buffer address")
> >
> > There are 2 options:
> > 1- remove the rte_ring_version.map part of the patch.
> > 2- change the static inline function into a standard function.
> >
> > I would prefer 2-, because it allows to keep an api/abi compat
> > layer in the future.
> 
> There are no news about this patch.
> I classify it as changes requested.
> 
Sorry for missed your comments for long time, I just submitted v8.
I took the first option as it is in the data path and to keep consistent to its 
neighboring functions.