From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] hash: replace existing hash library
	with cuckoo hash implementation
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 18:20:08 +0200
Message-ID: <8164644.CYfKgKpKoo@xps13>
References: <1436571020-16252-1-git-send-email-pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
 <20150713161154.GA6932@bricha3-MOBL3> <20150713161420.GB6932@bricha3-MOBL3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com
 [209.85.212.173]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C0ADE0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 18:21:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so34310722wib.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150713161420.GB6932@bricha3-MOBL3>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2015-07-13 17:14, Bruce Richardson:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 05:11:54PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:29:53AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 2015-07-11 01:18, Pablo de Lara:
> > > > The main change when creating a new table is that the number of entries
> > > > per bucket is fixed now, so its parameter is ignored now
> > > > (still there to maintain the same parameters structure).
> > > 
> > > Why not rename the "bucket_entries" field to "reserved"?
> > > The API of this field has changed (now ignored) so it should be reflected
> > > without changing the ABI.
> > 
> > Since the hash_create function is itself already versionned to take account of the
> > new struct parameter, there is no reason to keep the field at all, as far as I can see.
> > We can just drop it, and let the ABI versionning handle the change.
> > 
> > /Bruce
> 
> Sorry, my mistake. It's no longer versioned in the patchset that was merged, so
> the field does need to be kept. :-(

So do you agree to submit a patch which rename the unused field?