> > > > > Some cleanup activity (assuming above things are successful) > > > > > > > > > > 1) Remove the detailed comments on top of the internal functions - > > > > > it is hard to maintain, the parameters are already > > > > > self-explanatory > > > > > 3) Files need some re-org > > > > > a) rte_ring.h, rte_ring_hts.h, rte_ring_rts.h, rte_ring_peek.h - > > > > > will have legacy format APIs written as wrappers around xxx_elem APIs > > > > > b) rte_ring_elem.h, rte_ring_hts_elem.h, rte_ring_rts_elem.h, > > > > rte_ring_peek_elem.h - will have xxx_elem APIs > > > > > c) ring_elem_pvt.h, ring_hts_elem_pvt.h, ring_rts_elem_pvt.h, > > > > ring_peek_elem_pvt.h > > > > > - these will contain the internal functions including > > > > > the c11 > > > > functions to manipulate the head/tail pointers. > > > > > The files with xxx_c11_mem.h will disappear. Make sure > > > > private > > > > > functions have __rte prefix > > > > > > > > Basically you'd plan to: > > > > a) rename rte_ring_*_c11_mem.h to rte_ring_*_pvt.h > > > > b) get rid of rte_ring_generic.h > > > > Correct? > > > Yes > > > > If there would be no perf drops, I have no objections. > Agree > > Though recently there was a discussion is it ok to remove > > dpdk installable headers (even ones marked as internal). > Do you remember any conclusions? I tried to search, could not find the > discussion.
http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/69560/
