From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1DEA00C2; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 19:29:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3A840DDC; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 19:29:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pj1-f49.google.com (mail-pj1-f49.google.com [209.85.216.49]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684FE40042 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 19:29:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pj1-f49.google.com with SMTP id lx7so2376978pjb.0 for ; Thu, 06 Oct 2022 10:29:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=AUZJQYagLVWPmHycPYGKHjZd23TFDlPNknKIxFsIZbk=; b=lKF+trnj4LMCsWhiH5wtYbqVFcCqcSSs8+5Wnegg4bzncR3DyHHzQEmiLx7T0l3NHC FK4UzdR6LVV4Sb9z140wmrC5rOMQHqj8H+QLVEtepashl7o5EJDbHSfBmeJV3s1K7BID +0Ltpy19jGcuQVQfKjSPXeyx61nls/zHzfLf7nS3gr6nNRjL8qgAvX4kZi6A+23BMyD6 mvV5QMfE6/HrN4mZ1QxZi19xv2mUE/koRTdI0JhZEYCejMckHzHog/mNi/CWGjQmIX6/ mXDuMYI8ZoxqBUxDmGYBHZ0tKHBhImVdQj06ACDEm8eg/Q5c8uAw8GePkE7YJrtgiKcy rQMQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date; bh=AUZJQYagLVWPmHycPYGKHjZd23TFDlPNknKIxFsIZbk=; b=e6fDFEO6kGohVeKQnhkxDmOE4l4BeI3spSsd8KGE5GLGCkLH6nEpUvn++csApaU++7 hpye6cceR6LJv1+W7EoN4+dDAOjIzDhUXqB0lVE82im2RxNyjUfV5vFf7d9EXVmwjVM2 z1a8di7D1u9+khMo7VaXhRcuzmuHE8JhNSdCyol85puQChkUj803OQx2n+Ttf6bL2cMf CW3+bCmWU2n1UpE6UvtS/aTf2kKGPNmXiTAuCoj6DIU559k8U47DXEjIHtKiBzlqI+kP dVBkTowZUqH5pcG+Ht2E0FdLyy6LNBvkY2reA4MbS12mXCvHMyWl4AVO+MwvQJfsYgxH Vqng== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1yRJnbXQe9/TTWmLxFD2cgXqc43u1lSm+Xm9fXmnSxB7A1KYpZ CLbq4QYsIWd35RCkesEk9fOJMQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4N0bRrq4MQUzE9oNs9cWn++tSbeu4jM0cj24Spi4XWXIP47CRgR2R3bkS4YlG4Lg0Dnlwn8Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:c258:b0:20b:23d5:8eb2 with SMTP id d24-20020a17090ac25800b0020b23d58eb2mr740818pjx.85.1665077378511; Thu, 06 Oct 2022 10:29:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-120-218.wavecable.com. [204.195.120.218]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p11-20020a170902e74b00b0017f73caf588sm5072270plf.218.2022.10.06.10.29.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 06 Oct 2022 10:29:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 10:29:36 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Hanumanth Pothula Cc: Thomas Monjalon , Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] ethdev: support mulitiple mbuf pools per Rx queue Message-ID: <20221006102936.2c4074af@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: <20221006170126.1322852-1-hpothula@marvell.com> References: <20220915070732.182542-1-hpothula@marvell.com> <20221006170126.1322852-1-hpothula@marvell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 22:31:24 +0530 Hanumanth Pothula wrote: > + /** > + * Points to an array of mempools. > + * > + * Valid only when RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_MUL_MEMPOOL flag is set in > + * Rx offloads. > + * > + * This provides support for multiple mbuf pools per Rx queue. > + * > + * This is often useful for saving the memory where the application can > + * create a different pools to steer the specific size of the packet, thus > + * enabling effective use of memory. > + * > + * Note that on Rx scatter enable, a packet may be delivered using a chain > + * of mbufs obtained from single mempool or multiple mempools based on > + * the NIC implementation. > + */ > + struct rte_mempool **rx_mempools; > + uint16_t rx_npool; /** < number of mempools */ > + > uint64_t reserved_64s[2]; /**< Reserved for future fields */ > void *reserved_ptrs[2]; /**< Reserved for future fields */ Better and safer to just take up some of those existing reserved fields.