On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 21:14:49 +0530
Nitin Saxena <nsax...@marvell.com> wrote:
> +#ifndef RTE_NODE_MBUF_PERSISTENT_FIELDS_SIZE
> +/** Size of persistent mbuf fields */
> +#define RTE_NODE_MBUF_PERSISTENT_FIELDS_SIZE (0)
> +#endif /* RTE_NODE_MBUF_PERSISTENT_FIELDS_SIZE */
> +
> +#ifndef RTE_NODE_MBUF_OVERLOADABLE_FIELDS_SIZE
> +/** Size of overloadable mbuf fields */
> +#define RTE_NODE_MBUF_OVERLOADABLE_FIELDS_SIZE (8)
> +#endif /* RTE_NODE_MBUF_OVERLOADABLE_FIELDS_SIZE */
> +
> +/** Size of node mbuf dynamic field */
> +#define RTE_NODE_MBUF_DYNFIELD_SIZE \
> + (RTE_NODE_MBUF_PERSISTENT_FIELDS_SIZE +
> RTE_NODE_MBUF_OVERLOADABLE_FIELDS_SIZE)
> +
> +/**
> + * Node mbuf overloadable data.
> + *
> + * Out-of-tree nodes can repurpose overloadable fields via
> + * rte_node_mbuf_overload_fields_get(mbuf). Overloadable fields are not
> + * preserved and typically can be used with-in two adjacent nodes in the
> graph.
> + */
> +typedef struct rte_node_mbuf_overload_fields {
> + union {
> + uint8_t data[RTE_NODE_MBUF_OVERLOADABLE_FIELDS_SIZE];
> + };
> +} rte_node_mbuf_overload_fields_t;
Having a blank scratchpad rather than a real defined structure means you
lose any type checking or potential overflow checking.
