From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 260749412 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 07:16:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Jan 2016 22:16:08 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,353,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="734951837" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Jan 2016 22:16:08 -0800 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:16:32 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: "Xie, Huawei" Message-ID: <20160127061632.GH4257@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1449122773-25510-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <1449122773-25510-2-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <20160127032615.GC4257@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Victor Kaplansky Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/5] vhost: refactor rte_vhost_dequeue_burst X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 06:16:10 -0000 On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:12:22AM +0000, Xie, Huawei wrote: > On 1/27/2016 11:26 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:30:12AM +0000, Xie, Huawei wrote: > >> On 12/3/2015 2:03 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > >>> Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu > >>> --- > >>> lib/librte_vhost/vhost_rxtx.c | 287 +++++++++++++++++------------------------- > >>> 1 file changed, 113 insertions(+), 174 deletions(-) > >> Prefer to unroll copy_mbuf_to_desc and your COPY macro. It prevents us > > I'm okay to unroll COPY macro. But for copy_mbuf_to_desc, I prefer not > > to do that, unless it has a good reason. > > > >> processing descriptors in a burst way in future. > > So, do you have a plan? > > I think it is OK. If we need unroll in future, we could do that then. I > am open to this. Just my preference. I understand that wrapping makes > code more readable. Okay, let's consider it then: unroll would be easy after all. --yliu