2016-06-17 09:42, Hunt, David: > > On 17/6/2016 9:08 AM, Olivier Matz wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > On 06/17/2016 08:58 AM, Hunt, David wrote: > >> A comment below: > >> > >> On 16/6/2016 1:30 PM, David Hunt wrote: > >>> +/** > >>> + * Set the ops of a mempool. > >>> + * > >>> + * This can only be done on a mempool that is not populated, i.e. > >>> just after > >>> + * a call to rte_mempool_create_empty(). > >>> + * > >>> + * @param mp > >>> + * Pointer to the memory pool. > >>> + * @param name > >>> + * Name of the ops structure to use for this mempool. > >> + * @param pool_config > >> + * Opaque data that can be used by the ops functions. > >>> + * @return > >>> + * - 0: Success; the mempool is now using the requested ops functions. > >>> + * - -EINVAL - Invalid ops struct name provided. > >>> + * - -EEXIST - mempool already has an ops struct assigned. > >>> + */ > >>> +int > >>> +rte_mempool_set_ops_byname(struct rte_mempool *mp, const char *name, > >>> + void *pool_config); > >>> + > >> > > The changes related to the pool_config look good to me. > > > > If you plan to do a v14 for this API comment, I'm wondering if the > > documentation could be slightly modified too. I think "external mempool > > manager" was the legacy name for the feature, but maybe it could be > > changed in "alternative mempool handlers" or "changing the mempool > > handler". I mean the word "external" is probably not appropriate now, > > especially if we add other handlers in the mempool lib. > > > > My 2 cents, > > Olivier > > I had not planned on doing another revision. And I think the term "External > Mempool Manager" accurately describes the functionality, so I'd really > prefer to leave it as it is.
I think there is no manager, just a default handler which can be changed. I agree the documentation must be fixed.
