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 2100EA0540; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:10:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6C5340A7B; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:10:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87E40406B4 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:10:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40AAA5C0181; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 05:10:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 07 Jul 2022 05:10:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1657185012; x= 1657271412; bh=oL4YxtDFEJH9VUX/khyS4g58xkVENVtwquQt8Xtpe8Q=; b=S ddWfUwhXsCx57GBlksGDXZq5tIpuNHoL56UEvIojmDCzL+/LItx0Dr1x6Qvp8TFH jb4ysA76WmDRGZmJe/bBElqMiEoKrP/RH8eXUhCmo0lkeX3FhZvPCbeoMSZ6qEip 1PuJYxqT2VMiC3AIyh7oY0pJGUjL3lKFBqXo29DAUoCvLFCl17ViqOWtNEwmH3JV iQOXorHEYuL/AXKJi4efRXU1pj1KqDQFZs3Cj2kIAlo4mmP4Odh6mKKegEH8NR9X YK76tFviAjqZ8d89yDwtg3p9CG6wki3oKnyWOUR3tmLtK0b6gR2O1NkBHDLm78F1 l5HNx3ku7eimO8Ivlc/mg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1657185012; x= 1657271412; bh=oL4YxtDFEJH9VUX/khyS4g58xkVENVtwquQt8Xtpe8Q=; b=e 9DY0NQG6TeEwcaizceMsD7nwT28TivRjx2dJ8RPgKofpqkleTbrmMpYUnmhfI8rc MXyn4FbZwVDYOdTlcsbIh9w78ctWI/ow7i+esvFUqUDgPzQjaj9E9bI2jU6jT/qD F3KaB+8MYADczROQfkvbmw6eDty1NpfwQYe+ExZkiqoX/QZW6ZnkS7MBHMKR+n0Z doqRlBE1/Ubmg68tqRk1GeRsJUrIkyguVV0ZgDA2eJPZrdGUJxpTOzYCzMJzDviQ vnAN9QvRHCC5tKI+z2I/Pm27dpWinTZBY4fapwfRpYuULZhmMCgKtUwQkjesvd76 xhv+hOegbaycZ2Yd5hY1Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrudeihedguddvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedtjeeiieefhedtfffgvdelteeufeefheeujefgueetfedttdei kefgkeduhedtgfenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfh hrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 05:10:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Wu, WenxuanX" , "Ding, Xuan" Cc: "andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru" , dev@dpdk.org, "Li, Xiaoyun" , "ferruh.yigit@xilinx.com" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Zhang, Yuying" , "Zhang, Qi Z" , "jerinjacobk@gmail.com" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" , qi.z.zhang@intel.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com, john.mcnamara@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/4] add an api to support proto based buffer split Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 11:10:09 +0200 Message-ID: <7909469.ZlIXO0BPYK@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20220303060136.36427-1-xuan.ding@intel.com> <20220613102550.241759-1-wenxuanx.wu@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 21/06/2022 10:56, Ding, Xuan: > This protocol based buffer split patch series have been updated to v9. > Sincerely thank you for the effort you put into this series. > > Hope to know your considerations about this series now. > Do you think is it possible to get in 22.07? Or there are still some critical gaps need to be solved? > Because we don't hope the same thing happens in 22.11. My quick comment, I think you must better care about all details. Precise explanations are very important. It is more encouraging to review when we see the author tried hard to avoid any confusion or approximation.