Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 14/15] examples/rxtx_callbacks: switch to dynamic mbuf field

26/10/2020 15:53, Stephen Hemminger: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:33:14 +0100 > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 26/10/2020 11:43, David Marchand: > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 6:21 AM Thomas Monjalon > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The example used the deprecated mbuf field udata64. > > > > It is moved

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 14/15] examples/rxtx_callbacks: switch to dynamic mbuf field

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:33:14 +0100 Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 26/10/2020 11:43, David Marchand: > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 6:21 AM Thomas Monjalon > > wrote: > > > > > > The example used the deprecated mbuf field udata64. > > > It is moved to a dynamic field in order to allow removal of udata6

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 14/15] examples/rxtx_callbacks: switch to dynamic mbuf field

26/10/2020 11:43, David Marchand: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 6:21 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > The example used the deprecated mbuf field udata64. > > It is moved to a dynamic field in order to allow removal of udata64. > > > > Note: RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD_TIMESTAMP_NAME is an existing mbuf field n

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 14/15] examples/rxtx_callbacks: switch to dynamic mbuf field

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 6:21 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > The example used the deprecated mbuf field udata64. > It is moved to a dynamic field in order to allow removal of udata64. > > Note: RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD_TIMESTAMP_NAME is an existing mbuf field name. I am a bit lost. How is this going to wo

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 14/15] examples/rxtx_callbacks: switch to dynamic mbuf field

The example used the deprecated mbuf field udata64. It is moved to a dynamic field in order to allow removal of udata64. Note: RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD_TIMESTAMP_NAME is an existing mbuf field name. Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon --- doc/guides/sample_app_ug/rxtx_callbacks.rst | 4 ++-- examples/rxtx