Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 7/8] mempool: introduce block size align flag

[Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>]

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:57:57PM +0530, santosh wrote:
> 
> On Thursday 07 September 2017 01:43 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 04:58:33PM +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote:
> >> --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
> >> +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
> >> @@ -271,6 +271,10 @@ struct rte_mempool {
> >>   * Note: This flag should not be passed by application.
> >>   */
> >>  #define MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_PHYS_CONTIG 0x0040
> >> +/**
> >> + * Align object start address to total elem size
> >> + */
> >> +#define MEMPOOL_F_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS 0x0080
> > Same than with the other flag: since the meaning of this flag is not obvious
> > when we read the name, it has to be clearly described.
> > - say that it's virtual address
> > - say that it implies MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_PHYS_CONTIG
> > - say that it can be advertised by a driver and the application should
> >   not pass it
> >
> > And, since it shall not be passed by an application, I suggest to add
> > _CAPA too (i.e. MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS).
> >
> Ok, I will elaborate on FLAG description in v6,
> and Rename to MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS.
> 
> Can you please suggest are you ok with
> checking MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS | _PHYS_CONTIG
> in _xmem_size()/_usage(), asked in v4 [1] for same patch.
> 
> [1] http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/27600/ 
> 

yes, I'm ok with your proposition:
- MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS and _PHYS_CONTIG are capa flags,
  not set by application but by the handler
- the help says that _BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS implies _PHYS_CONTIG
- test both (_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS | _PHYS_CONTIG) in _xmem_size()/_usage()