From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73C6BA00C3; Fri, 15 May 2020 15:13:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB7A51DAEC; Fri, 15 May 2020 15:13:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new3-smtp.messagingengine.com (new3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.229]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63171DAE9 for ; Fri, 15 May 2020 15:13:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66CF758024F; Fri, 15 May 2020 09:13:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 15 May 2020 09:13:11 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= lkXX7yGraXO0wgP7jc3i7oW+9ALxe/tmr+YsPNeMsQ4=; b=Z2Joojb0A0Z0S9x2 Amo5G1wGYyx10qW/wopHVQOhNVz1WVXdQnxXs33GR22L6oX88btpbbbfGrSyzDQ4 EzdQ3DIS7Uh8wligfZvMwyhVVZ9ceXko23AX1j6VIpjqEnmj5abn7eO8NyqJ6RLk olbYlYa7WPSGKC7A9wxZ6xoBcQISjXDl1VxtaffpbQFjuHZKDcG2auFXjeIyCFJJ kXDxHY317gXvwQns8EwWcGP9xljYdOsaW+PiruYWq9csyUSdjVOCtg/+rMLNvTBF IfjQiM9G1sN7+NWQW3NVUY9wXiksjOVUYWPiZ+3nHsV0AzkIGNMTVAlvZp2CpKVH X5yoUw== 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-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=lkXX7yGraXO0wgP7jc3i7oW+9ALxe/tmr+YsPNeMs Q4=; b=aijg33Zz5cdmSCLJiet2HkScgXYUoYXfjNbfisFIUfw3CMVKuVF1j02eg qixHmHdDmTM3G2cZegy9V5KEBoJpTJcdNVCNHpv5NpnKWPEwhsFCtlNudwK9ZYS9 Jdf7c3aWDA7+7nEPN1HqXVk0XRXFuM8oLqPabBda4cQoVOg7ZfUIyFeiFZtZdd7L WnmQCCWxwX4BRs89XaDpGUAQzdeujg0bG3nYFYWma/TiPE6hAf8TQ28Po3zqMflR WFTotwQ2VV0rPpHX2aCRPzWvkngutRcb+aNC4VQgrUBiD1F4I85WFtY3q9XGE2+Y rt1Yh5dD9KPxEBUgg0GFVHHJr156A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrleekgdeitdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9D84D3280063; Fri, 15 May 2020 09:13:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Nithin Dabilpuram Cc: Olivier Matz , Jerin Jacob , Nithin Dabilpuram , Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko , Ori Kam , Cristian Dumitrescu , Anatoly Burakov , John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic , dpdk-dev , Jerin Jacob , Krzysztof Kanas Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 15:12:59 +0200 Message-ID: <2214992.9fHWaBTJ5E@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20200515100845.GA19989@outlook.office365.com> References: <20200417072254.11455-1-nithind1988@gmail.com> <20200514202931.GF1739@platinum> <20200515100845.GA19989@outlook.office365.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/3] mbuf: add Tx offloads for packet marking 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 15/05/2020 12:08, Nithin Dabilpuram: > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:29:31PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > > I don't see any better approach than having a mbuf flag. However, I'm > > still not fully convinced that a dynamic flag won't do the job. Taking > > 3 additional flags (among 18 remaing) for this feature also means that > > we have 3 flags less for dynamic flags for all applications, even for > > applications that will not use this feature. > > > > Would it be a problem to use a dynamic flag in this case? > Since packet marking feature itself is already part of spec, > if we move the flags to PMD specific dynamic flag, then it creates a confusion. > > It is not the case of a custom feature supported by a specific PMD. > I believe when other PMD's implement packet marking, the same flags will > suffice. A dynamic flag is not necessarily PMD-specific. It is just avoiding consuming bits if the feature is not used by the application. We must move more existing flags and fields to be dynamic. In general, all new flags and fields in mbuf should be dynamic. And a work must be done to move existing stuff to free more space for more dynamic features.