Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 0/6] Rename queue types

2016-02-03 Thread Maxim Uvarov
t;mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org>] On Behalf Of EXT > Maxim Uvarov > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:01 PM > To: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org <mailto:lng-odp@lists.linaro.org> > Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 0/6] Rename queue types > &

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 0/6] Rename queue types

2016-02-02 Thread Maxim Uvarov
f user sets param to NULL > > or passes an initialized param (without any changes), the result > > is the same - the default settings. The type would be PLAIN in > > both cases. > > > > -Petri > > >

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 0/6] Rename queue types

2016-02-02 Thread Maxim Uvarov
ailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org <mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org>] On Behalf Of EXT > Maxim Uvarov > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:01 PM > To: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org <mailto:lng-odp@lists.linaro.org> > Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 0/6] Rename queue types

2016-02-02 Thread Maxim Uvarov
lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 0/6] Rename queue types This looks good, however PLAIN doesn't seem very intuitive as it's not descriptive of how the queue behaves. How about simply QUEUE_TYPE_UNSCHED to contrast with QUEUE_TYPE_SCHED? The real distinction here is whether

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 0/6] Rename queue types

2016-02-02 Thread Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
Of EXT > Maxim Uvarov > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:01 PM > To: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org > Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 0/6] Rename queue types > > Petri, > > that looks like also good to go to 1.7. Validation tests should be there > because it's

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 0/6] Rename queue types

2016-02-02 Thread Bill Fischofer
PM > > To: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org > > Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 0/6] Rename queue types > > > > Petri, > > > > that looks like also good to go to 1.7. Validation tests should be there > > because it's only rename. > > What do you think?

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 0/6] Rename queue types

2016-01-29 Thread Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- the default settings. The type would be PLAIN in both cases. -Petri From: EXT Bill Fischofer [mailto:bill.fischo...@linaro.org] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 5:21 AM To: Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) Cc: LNG ODP Mailman List Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 0/6] Rename queue types

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 0/6] Rename queue types

2016-01-29 Thread Bill Fischofer
ttings. The type would be PLAIN in both cases. > > > > -Petri > > > > > > > > *From:* EXT Bill Fischofer [mailto:bill.fischo...@linaro.org] > *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 5:21 AM > *To:* Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) > *Cc:* LNG ODP Mailman Lis

Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 0/6] Rename queue types

2016-01-28 Thread Bill Fischofer
This looks good, however PLAIN doesn't seem very intuitive as it's not descriptive of how the queue behaves. How about simply QUEUE_TYPE_UNSCHED to contrast with QUEUE_TYPE_SCHED? The real distinction here is whether the ODP scheduler or the application is managing the queue, i.e., whether the

[lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH 0/6] Rename queue types

2016-01-28 Thread Petri Savolainen
This patch set renames queue types and pktio modes with commonly used and descriptive terms. Type of odp_queue_type_t is defined as enum and included into queue parameters. Queue type and defines parameter usage (which params are considered e.g. in queue creation), and is inline with other