On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 01:14:34PM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:07:09AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > Hi Jerrin,
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > I would like align mbuff rearm_data field to 8 byte aligned so that
> > > > write to mbuf
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:07:09AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> Hi Jerrin,
>
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I would like align mbuff rearm_data field to 8 byte aligned so that
> > write to mbuf->rearm_data with uint64_t* will be naturally aligned.
> > I am not sure about IA but some other archit
Hi All,
I would like align mbuff rearm_data field to 8 byte aligned so that
write to mbuf->rearm_data with uint64_t* will be naturally aligned.
I am not sure about IA but some other architecture/implementation has overhead
in non-naturally aligned stores.
Proposed patch is something like this bel
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:07:09AM +, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > Hi Jerrin,
> >
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I would like align mbuff rearm_data field to 8 byte aligned so that
> > > write to mbuf->rearm_data with uint64_t* will be naturally aligned.
> > > I am not sure about IA but
Hi Jerrin,
>
> Hi All,
>
> I would like align mbuff rearm_data field to 8 byte aligned so that
> write to mbuf->rearm_data with uint64_t* will be naturally aligned.
> I am not sure about IA but some other architecture/implementation has overhead
> in non-naturally aligned stores.
>
> Proposed p
5 matches
Mail list logo