Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 05/15] security: switch metadata to dynamic mbuf field

2020-10-31 Thread Thomas Monjalon
31/10/2020 09:56, David Marchand: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 6:45 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > The device-specific metadata was stored in the deprecated field udata64. > > It is moved to a dynamic mbuf field in order to allow removal of udata64. > > > > The name rte_security_dynfield is not ve

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 05/15] security: switch metadata to dynamic mbuf field

2020-10-31 Thread David Marchand
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 9:56 AM David Marchand wrote: > A lazy fix is to simply ask for registering a field at offset > sizeof(dynfield) - 1 .. what do you think? I meant sizeof(struct rte_mbuf) - 1. -- David Marchand

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 05/15] security: switch metadata to dynamic mbuf field

2020-10-31 Thread David Marchand
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 6:45 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > The device-specific metadata was stored in the deprecated field udata64. > It is moved to a dynamic mbuf field in order to allow removal of udata64. > > The name rte_security_dynfield is not very descriptive > but it should be replaced lat

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 05/15] security: switch metadata to dynamic mbuf field

2020-10-30 Thread Thomas Monjalon
The device-specific metadata was stored in the deprecated field udata64. It is moved to a dynamic mbuf field in order to allow removal of udata64. The name rte_security_dynfield is not very descriptive but it should be replaced later by separate fields for each type of data that drivers pass to th