From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mbuf:rearrange mbuf to be more mbuf chain friendly
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:30:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8530000.4NpoyoCY28@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <73B00DD6-F266-4A76-8C4E-F875C16D6977@intel.com>
2016-06-27 13:06, Wiles, Keith:
>
> On 6/27/16, 4:05 AM, "Thomas Monjalon" <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
>
> >2016-06-27 10:27, Olivier Matz:
> >> On 06/27/2016 10:21 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Keith Wiles
> >> >> Move the next pointer to the first cacheline of the rte_mbuf structure
> >> >> and move the offload values to the second cacheline to give better
> >> >> performance to applications using chained mbufs.
> >> >>
> >> >> Enabled by a configuration option CONFIG_RTE_MBUF_CHAIN_FRIENDLY default
> >> >> is set to No.
> >> >
> >> > First, it would make ixgbe and i40e vector RX functions to work incorrectly.
> >> > Second, I don't think we can afford to allow people swap mbuf fields in the way they like.
> >> > Otherwise we'll end-up with totally unmaintainable code pretty soon.
> >> > So NACK.
> >>
> >> +1
> >
> >To be more precise, the arrangement of fields in rte_mbuf is open
> >to debate and changes.
> >There is a recent discussion here:
> > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-May/039483.html
> >
> >I think we must try to improve few things in mbuf during the 16.11 cycle.
> >But it must not be allowed to have a build option to adapt this structure
> >or any other API. There is only one DPDK API for a given version.
>
> I just received a private email thread on this one and it appears it is not a big of a problem as was stated before. ☹ So yes we can reject this one.
>
> Someone rejected these in patchwork already, which I expected I would be the one to reject the patches. Is this not the case? I understand if the patch just hangs round, but I would have expected after the list rejected the patch I would be the one to reject the patches. I try to keep up with my patches and rejecting a patch before I have a chance to do so seems a bit harsh to me.
Yes it's me, sorry I've been quick when I've seen the first 2 comments.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-27 14:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-25 15:29 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Keith Wiles
2016-06-25 15:48 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-06-25 15:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Keith Wiles
2016-06-27 8:21 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-06-27 8:27 ` Olivier Matz
2016-06-27 9:05 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-06-27 13:06 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-06-27 14:30 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8530000.4NpoyoCY28@xps13 \
--to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=keith.wiles@intel.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).