Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/2] mbuf: support attaching external buffer to mbuf

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

Hi Yongseok,

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 06:02:44PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > > @@ -688,14 +704,33 @@ rte_mbuf_to_baddr(struct rte_mbuf *md)
> > >   }
> > >   /**
> > > + * 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

Any comment about this option?