> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, 16 February 2026 18.36 > > On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 15:23:20 +0000 > Morten Brørup <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +/** > > + * @warning > > + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this API may change without prior notice. > > + * > > + * @internal > > + * Put several objects back in the mempool, more than the cache has > room for; used internally. > > + * > > + * @param mp > > + * A pointer to the mempool structure. > > + * @param obj_table > > + * A pointer to a table of void * pointers (objects). > > + * @param n > > + * The number of objects to store back in the mempool, must be > strictly > > + * positive. > > + * @param cache > > + * A pointer to a mempool cache structure. > > + */ > > +__rte_experimental > > +void > > +_rte_mempool_do_generic_put_more(struct rte_mempool *mp, void * > const *obj_table, > > + unsigned int n, struct rte_mempool_cache *cache); > > + > > Don't you want internal not experimental on this. > You don't want or expect direct callers.
I initially had it internal, but it's being called from an inline function, so it needs to be publicly accessible from applications. It seems experimental doesn't suffice either - if only stable APIs are allowed - so it probably needs to be a regular API. We'll get that sorted. The core question of the RFC is the tradeoff of making he unlikely code path non-inline to gain a smaller footprint of the likely code path.
