Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure

2019-11-21 Thread Olivier Matz
Hi, On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 07:56:14AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 07:01:26 + > Shahaf Shuler wrote: > > > Wednesday, November 20, 2019 1:51 AM, Stephen Hemminger: > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure

2019-11-20 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 07:01:26 + Shahaf Shuler wrote: > Wednesday, November 20, 2019 1:51 AM, Stephen Hemminger: > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private > > structure > > > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:30:15 +0100 > > Thomas Monjalo

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure

2019-11-19 Thread Shahaf Shuler
Wednesday, November 20, 2019 1:51 AM, Stephen Hemminger: > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private > structure > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:30:15 +0100 > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 19/11/2019 17:25, Stephen Hemminger: > > > O

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure

2019-11-19 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:30:15 +0100 Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 19/11/2019 17:25, Stephen Hemminger: > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:23:50 + > > Shahaf Shuler wrote: > > > > > Tuesday, November 19, 2019 11:33 AM, Thomas Monjalon: > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private str

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure

2019-11-19 Thread Thomas Monjalon
19/11/2019 17:25, Stephen Hemminger: > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:23:50 + > Shahaf Shuler wrote: > > > Tuesday, November 19, 2019 11:33 AM, Thomas Monjalon: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure > > > > > > 18/11/2019 11:02, Shahaf Shuler: > > > > struct rte_p

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure

2019-11-19 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:23:50 + Shahaf Shuler wrote: > Tuesday, November 19, 2019 11:33 AM, Thomas Monjalon: > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure > > > > 18/11/2019 11:02, Shahaf Shuler: > > > struct rte_pktmbuf_pool_private { > > > uint16_t mbuf_data_room

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure

2019-11-19 Thread Shahaf Shuler
Tuesday, November 19, 2019 11:33 AM, Thomas Monjalon: > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure > > 18/11/2019 11:02, Shahaf Shuler: > > struct rte_pktmbuf_pool_private { > > uint16_t mbuf_data_room_size; /**< Size of data space in each > mbuf. */ > > uint16_t mbu

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure

2019-11-19 Thread Thomas Monjalon
18/11/2019 11:02, Shahaf Shuler: > struct rte_pktmbuf_pool_private { > uint16_t mbuf_data_room_size; /**< Size of data space in each mbuf. */ > uint16_t mbuf_priv_size; /**< Size of private area in each mbuf. */ > + uint32_t reserved; /**< reserved for future use. */ Maybe si

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure

2019-11-18 Thread Shahaf Shuler
Monday, November 18, 2019 6:12 PM, Stephen Hemminger: > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private > structure > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 10:02:55 + > Shahaf Shuler wrote: > > > With the API and ABI freeze ahead, it will be good to reserve some

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure

2019-11-18 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 10:02:55 + Shahaf Shuler wrote: > With the API and ABI freeze ahead, it will be good to reserve > some bits on the private structure for future use. > > Otherwise we will potentially need to maintain two different > private structure during 2020 period. > > There is alre

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure

2019-11-18 Thread Shahaf Shuler
With the API and ABI freeze ahead, it will be good to reserve some bits on the private structure for future use. Otherwise we will potentially need to maintain two different private structure during 2020 period. There is already one use case for those reserved bits[1] The reserved field should b