From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7176A04DB; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:20:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543581DDE5; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:19:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0231D5C6 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:19:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28CBEAB; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 06:19:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 15 Oct 2020 06:19:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= pFjeGCjLfN99+WwPIGS1cuEvoDkhtM/e40W7RXeSM30=; b=JAwN1nZTGXGsqAxN WQLEEJ4uzN9TmzBgMCmYGGar9ikLLymVyD6V9MF15P5vfyxnJV8ganqy6u80nx3E 0anaa5DLMLoyd97DKsKkAlk57GgM3i8IpebocEguDtHUP+mE+BhZ9XheJtVeQzwX A0mwK/I3AyNlooqGv/jCfwcvUP5bPYdhYVyqIvqRgfjTHdQKH8Hu5zz4kuwMGbJV jrjaOUj2zvnfIz0QBABLuvDw/g3hp02eRHcIfgsGxgSnkBNL1Dkj0qijD3x5aUmO IQCI3rBdBW4urC0dY2f6UsdeL7XgjVLKgHbNYent8EZtNWlL5VxqZkn6IfJer6gJ 43eJMg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=pFjeGCjLfN99+WwPIGS1cuEvoDkhtM/e40W7RXeSM 30=; b=kY77sljxluklY1EMUZOjKcXV3HmyapjHCYxrvnYmgZthenC6tVwv7RUxU 1vf/l96LKvAUA77z+elWCTToeeHn7Xqh8LdwADJQDMx6GlGuh/YtScMhCMHEPA0r dHj/+9Ej4OPFXbJxzI+VGI++7aU2XXLEgnRgUtDinlLqdatJxuok6YpxZzbLXVby f191XvNRiy+nw5E9uzBkh1H81jkdLsr8Cr7PDLEP3nLM/yIZEOeMcIf6CEa+yL1a hN75vgrmX/AHMRyJ7pg7g9t/Gsd1q/Vw8VgAhiZpfyOBuLFxl7VguZcbkWYw+8E+ J2Qxv9WvmukARJVBh+GdEJu9JujHA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrieefgddviecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4F02B3064686; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 06:19:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Viacheslav Ovsiienko , Andrew Rybchenko Cc: dev@dpdk.org, stephen@networkplumber.org, ferruh.yigit@intel.com, olivier.matz@6wind.com, jerinjacobk@gmail.com, maxime.coquelin@redhat.com, david.marchand@redhat.com, arybchenko@solarflare.com Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:19:52 +0200 Message-ID: <1770233.W31HxidhCN@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <1602699122-15737-2-git-send-email-viacheslavo@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/6] ethdev: introduce Rx buffer split X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 15/10/2020 12:11, Andrew Rybchenko: > On 10/14/20 9:11 PM, Viacheslav Ovsiienko wrote: > > + /* Single pool configuration check. */ > > + if (rx_conf->rx_seg || rx_conf->rx_nseg) { > > Please, compare vs NULL and 0. IMHO, rx_nsegs check is sufficient. If it > is 0, nobody cares what is in rx_seg. Yes the pointer should not be a criteria. Having more than zero items is enough to check. [...] > > + RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, > > + "%s mbuf_data_room_size %u < %u" > > + " (RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM=%u +" > > + " min_rx_bufsize(dev)=%u)\n", > > Do not split format string. It is not a problem that it is long. The benefit of keeping format string on the same line is for "grepping" the source code. But after a format specifier, I think we can split. Who is grepping "< %u (RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM" ? I would just change the split on the second line after the %u.