From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7119D2C52 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 22:22:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9512211D4; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:22:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:22:47 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=WfEs0JArxo57cFsCzX67ZCQ9Gi PmCG4HWLeyIcZ83M4=; b=MptgTWWz4aXT2ujmiQu45HSZehK1ASg8CidMllzbsO /VlSOkyeWmGOvjdvbDZlNI1osEwu2AsN0D0Vu45cjv5BVALQ+dRu7dpDoW1BbZFF NwuE7phmr1JnEglUqfOsdr8JRrMc7/rPNojem0aJu1Zbs+BWdN1y+5uciR26Sgo7 8= 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-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=WfEs0J Arxo57cFsCzX67ZCQ9GiPmCG4HWLeyIcZ83M4=; b=fSq112ShnrRpH9NIbTEdW8 k7vzTZ8pFC+zx92jJYbAUkowCc6xrDqJPDPY2NzQQiMHjPCjjkSZRmofBCntaz+N uniyCKdPMkfaiz/bK07z+tH0i8kILBjfrQ21E8RO4499mMg21Gz163M/ndKZ7SNS k9SEnG+0nvK2toSWNXEsDdvfLcxhjeM8kEqq3XOUUFPY7p0xot3N5dbu+pOnMypp zufA/ysbe3PpuxWjwrV0jaI9YIJ1Tg4tzpV98oDSPCCvTHgNSQZyXAz39sCXCKVN TaxhFZZ+n8MVgFRUteuxwL5bLmMiHflGWygZJQPR+SWxIQspWTy9/9C/ST8MNW/Q == X-ME-Sender: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id AFE2AE4488; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:22:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Olivier Matz , Andrew Rybchenko , Yongseok Koh Cc: wenzhuo.lu@intel.com, jingjing.wu@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com, nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 22:22:45 +0200 Message-ID: <1963503.R6hUdDjUTB@xps> In-Reply-To: <20180424191538.exjgzoif4odhndew@neon> References: <20180310012532.15809-1-yskoh@mellanox.com> <20180424191538.exjgzoif4odhndew@neon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/2] mbuf: support attaching external buffer to mbuf 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:22:48 -0000 24/04/2018 21:15, Olivier Matz: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 09:21:00PM +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > > On 04/24/2018 07:02 PM, Olivier Matz wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 03:28:33PM +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > > > > On 04/24/2018 04:38 AM, Yongseok Koh wrote: > > > > > + * Returns TRUE if given mbuf is cloned by mbuf indirection, or FALSE > > > > > + * otherwise. > > > > > + * > > > > > + * If a mbuf has its data in another mbuf and references it by mbuf > > > > > + * indirection, this mbuf can be defined as a cloned mbuf. > > > > > + */ > > > > > +#define RTE_MBUF_CLONED(mb) ((mb)->ol_flags & IND_ATTACHED_MBUF) > > > > > + > > > > > +/** > > > > > * Returns TRUE if given mbuf is indirect, or FALSE otherwise. > > > > > */ > > > > > -#define RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(mb) ((mb)->ol_flags & IND_ATTACHED_MBUF) > > > > > +#define RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(mb) RTE_MBUF_CLONED(mb) > > > > It is still confusing that INDIRECT != !DIRECT. > > > > May be we have no good options right now, but I'd suggest to at least > > > > deprecate > > > > RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT() and completely remove it in the next release. > > > Agree. I may have missed something, but is my previous suggestion > > > not doable? > > > > > > - direct = embeds its own data (and indirect = !direct) > > > - clone (or another name) = data is another mbuf > > > - extbuf = data is in an external buffer > > > > I guess the problem that it changes INDIRECT semantics since EXTBUF > > is added as well. I think strictly speaking it is an API change. > > Is it OK to make it without announcement? > > In any case, there will be an ABI change, because an application > compiled for 18.02 will not be able to handle these new kind of > mbuf. > > So unfortunatly yes, I think this kind of changes should first be > announced. > > Thomas, what do you think? What is the impact for the application developer? Is there something to change in the application after this patch?