The currently defined syntax for odp_buffer_pool_create is:
odp_buffer_pool_t odp_buffer_pool_create(const char *name,
odp_buffer_pool_param_t *params,
odp_buffer_pool_init_t
*init_params);
Any proposed changes to include an odp_shm_t, etc. should be part of the
odp_buffer_pool_param_t.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 10/22/2014 05:14 PM, Savolainen, Petri (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
>
>> I think it might be better to add extend odp_buffer_pool_create:
>>>
>>> odp_buffer_pool_t odp_buffer_pool_create(const char *name,
>>> void *base_addr, uint64_t
>>> size,
>>> size_t buf_size, size_t
>>> buf_align,
>>> int buf_type)
>>>
>>> provide base_addr as remote_pool_mapped_base address and buf_type as:
>>> ODP_BUFFER_TYPE_IPC
>>>
>>> In that case I will not allocate memory, will link pktio with remote
>>> base_addr.
>>> Will check how is it implementable.
>>>
>>> Will send new version of patch.
>>>
>>> Maxim.
>>>
>> After my latest shm changes (reference shm with handle), I was going
>> change buffer pool create to use that handle. It should be done still, and
>> after that pool create can see e.g. the shm flags. No need to "
>> remote_pool_mapped_base address", right?
>>
>> odp_buffer_pool_t odp_buffer_pool_create(const char *name,
>> odp_shm_t shm,
>> size_t buf_size, size_t
>> buf_align, int buf_type)
>>
>> -Petri
>>
>> Yes, in that case it will solve that problem. But after that we will
> lost ability to app allocate memory for pool. Do we need both handler and
> pointer? Or do we need to allocate memory for pool from application for any
> reason?
>
> Maxim.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lng-odp mailing list
> lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
>
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
