From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475D1B3B2 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 10:56:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Sep 2014 02:01:24 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,491,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="570429827" Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Sep 2014 02:00:29 -0700 Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.112]) by IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 10:00:15 +0100 From: "Richardson, Bruce" To: Olivier MATZ , "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 04/13] mbuf: expand ol_flags field to 64-bits Thread-Index: AQHPx462Gn8M6DiOEk+JRDLawCNrxJv2/pWAgAGJD0A= Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 09:00:15 +0000 Message-ID: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B0343EFA8F@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1409759378-10113-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <1409759378-10113-5-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <540D8421.7070808@6wind.com> In-Reply-To: <540D8421.7070808@6wind.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 08:56:22 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 11:26 AM > To: Richardson, Bruce; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 04/13] mbuf: expand ol_flags field to 64-b= its >=20 > Hi Bruce, >=20 > 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 >=20 > 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? ;) No, it is a good change - I've just keep it out of my series for simplicity= as I'm largely trying to keep the scope as small as possible. I would love= to see that go in as a separate patch maybe once the mbuf rework is finish= ed.=20 >=20 > 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? As above for now. Right now I'm just trying to get the structure worked out= , and deal with any performance regressions that are found (such as what Pa= blo found last Friday :-( ).=20 /Bruce >=20 > Olivier >=20 >=20 > [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002545.html > [2] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002546.html