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
>
&
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
> >
>
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
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
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
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?
- 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
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo