From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8943DB397 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 12:20:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from was59-1-82-226-113-214.fbx.proxad.net ([82.226.113.214] helo=[192.168.0.10]) by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XQwBH-0007hB-9e; Mon, 08 Sep 2014 12:28:22 +0200 Message-ID: <540D8421.7070808@6wind.com> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 12:25:37 +0200 From: Olivier MATZ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Richardson , dev@dpdk.org References: <1409759378-10113-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <1409759378-10113-5-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1409759378-10113-5-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 04/13] mbuf: expand ol_flags field to 64-bits X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 10:20:47 -0000 Hi Bruce, On 09/03/2014 05:49 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > The offload flags field (ol_flags) was 16-bits and had no further room > for expansion. This patch increases the field size to 64-bits, using up > the remaining reserved space in the single-cache-line mbuf. > > NOTE: none of the values for existing flags have been changed, i.e. no > new numbers have been explicitly reserved between existing flag > definitions. > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson The initial series I've proposed [1][2] had on more enhancement: the first patch [1] allowed to remove the definition of flag names in testpmd. Indeed, this is not really good because they must be kept synchronized with the flags in rte_mbuf. What do you think about this patch? Should it be integrated in your series? Or later? Or never? ;) The second patch [2] changes the value of the flags. This is not needed now, but if we do it in the future, we should not forget to change app/test-pmd/cmdline.c accordingly. Maybe this could go in your patch directly as it does not hurt? Olivier [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002545.html [2] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002546.html