From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C77D6CC8 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 21:58:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CD6A20FF2; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:58:03 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=bJXcVvCaBFipmdA/NR/jPmbkFa LW1/SvAxSo8ZPMVQ8=; b=qt+L7hIpwoRfmnFv0InobEnTwWv1QTwro7C59ce7uZ oO2W7ZEhgmzbWmEweLsSRxndQ70VZ4I2ah9PJLNWweeWX2jjTKgnB5XyOPK6L2p/ 8V7fn1uaw07Zg2PKLremytP2iQ3sn+gcVjaWKSqjzJ0XUqpBY/cdAjseqlelnOW4 4= 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-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=bJXcVv CaBFipmdA/NR/jPmbkFaLW1/SvAxSo8ZPMVQ8=; b=P9CSBmbmWOcyGNDYxhLTLC zrzIF+uz8YbCpmhEapEprtxtK1SVtvG29bt3ZRO9c+epejLQcQyprq/JHLn76Mlb 3UPn3jpfqokbKIil7ndeUfarqnqVLhmgnA5P8XrG2vOWsfr+hzRmZwDsTDHmpId1 Tm4ChHzN0Xw1KiNtgaifa2wDjti6NAYGEi2wT7rXGKBs22aBRSPe4fu0Ezl4XfcX mHSO+O0zdUQKmeJnsoIB6PMcBqO+ZYiwOqVfQ+xyLPuTOeZhkJQbFkIvZEQrt1HL wfNakmRd+bTvPxb5WVcH3XLIOYbXWjwjFede/nAer4Si1jVqX595oe9V1FR3di4Q == X-ME-Sender: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3E38FE4412; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:58:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Olivier Matz Cc: Andrew Rybchenko , Yongseok Koh , wenzhuo.lu@intel.com, jingjing.wu@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com, nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 21:58:00 +0200 Message-ID: <3222860.1kATvoXXQV@xps> In-Reply-To: <20180426194208.vm7rr5svn6xq7ki5@neon> References: <20180310012532.15809-1-yskoh@mellanox.com> <1854520.Legm0nyyME@xps> <20180426194208.vm7rr5svn6xq7ki5@neon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/2] mbuf: support attaching external buffer to mbuf 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 19:58:04 -0000 26/04/2018 21:42, Olivier Matz: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 06:10:36PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 26/04/2018 18:05, Andrew Rybchenko: > > > On 04/26/2018 04:10 AM, Yongseok Koh wrote: > > > > -#define RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(mb) ((mb)->ol_flags & IND_ATTACHED_MBUF) > > > > +#define RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(mb) RTE_MBUF_CLONED(mb) > > > > > > We have discussed that it would be good to deprecate RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT() > > > since it is not !RTE_MBUF_DIREC(). Is it lost here or intentional (may > > > be I've lost > > > in the thread)? > > > > I think it should be a separate deprecation notice. > > Agree with Andrew that RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT should be deprecated > to avoid confusion with !DIRECT. What do you mean? We should add a comment? Or poisoining the macro? Or something else? Should it be removed? In which release?