From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E242A00BE; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 11:25:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F5E1BFE2; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 11:25:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB2B1BFB6 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 11:25:52 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1572431151; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=yCxRHh/9IIlxbPannEsuXovI3PYu4bcwEfu4ypMgBVQ=; b=L35nszoqbRXrZGIg/iBkvE8FqKoWusdXwFerk6qO0u2ECAfPWWEMyt9bNSN2LKN5oJRyEq nRr00zjGn87GW0PSsDJFYTgUXfXl8OxqGAWDWR3wUQTit5aklOIIbDPI3Gkhr0x6aHwGmR nih4nCVEFQinMGVR9XpJnta5covWvlA= Received: from mail-vk1-f198.google.com (mail-vk1-f198.google.com [209.85.221.198]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-186-rqSTTjMNNWCp-Hwfddc2CA-1; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 06:25:49 -0400 Received: by mail-vk1-f198.google.com with SMTP id 63so744686vkr.23 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 03:25:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mFGNVDHG+kx8AHbbu7ZrgQEQkMpCXxVv233s3zZ8w28=; b=oJAmZ3sSkq7J7m+Ax3LCsDhU0QqSSdgxOvYz4QNNJoe7uqHYDtExU/RUvLIW6Z7Wii bgUWkn+YNLdABKCBjHuS3DfY/O3uzsvVY7QtbmNVz70jO05a/zSGdDGxE/YixR7kn1Z0 5p0e1IuXHmKAUiICkMrLP9YbQwRvVygnxbeHbuL/H//ZkWcryVDubahj64BvYtHF9vzv BKRX4MnHDDUyaG+3XHsq2COOL1AWfh+F9SPGcsJdfelrtPEE2FkAwgcif88D4aWHH4UR qVSp2isnFhQeKWeAxFLE7YFSy56t5i2tjhtvJRMNMNzTzmvQyYG/0/lKSgs2cKP3+xzf LmKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWX0hEwm0rAhzUxpnDG4+M5Wqj0YSR6GLntxQhbijWxYOPJ/nX6 IOa7zim48ObeZrpG0Jg8h9XF3ktB4HqRBzJY5H2AVnlkCLyakfG5UIwsAvDeeyjRV6FlpTfkXYt UeY4swca4+WDvCNVtM9c= X-Received: by 2002:a67:fa99:: with SMTP id f25mr4437286vsq.141.1572431148526; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 03:25:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwjaYc5XVxPWG/bBwL/aMRAwdYpyv6GuR480hVpOs5ixxNaqRi+K7gXBCLJaAcLixJYakXUgYTz+cBMqwoOvgM= X-Received: by 2002:a67:fa99:: with SMTP id f25mr4437272vsq.141.1572431148160; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 03:25:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190709082254.12698-1-jgrajcia@cisco.com> <20190822081833.11203-1-jgrajcia@cisco.com> <955be42a14bf484aae1afaf4157504f4@XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <955be42a14bf484aae1afaf4157504f4@XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com> From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 11:25:36 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Jakub Grajciar -X (jgrajcia - PANTHEON TECH SRO at Cisco)" Cc: "Yigit, Ferruh" , dev , "Burakov, Anatoly" X-MC-Unique: rqSTTjMNNWCp-Hwfddc2CA-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] net/memif: zero-copy slave 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:17 AM Jakub Grajciar -X (jgrajcia - PANTHEON TECH SRO at Cisco) wrote: > > > On 8/22/2019 9:18 AM, Jakub Grajciar wrote: > > > > Zero-copy slave support for memif PMD. > > > > Slave interface exposes DPDK memory to master interface. Only singl= e > > > > file segments are supported (EAL option --single-file-segments). > > > > Do you really want this additional configuration in your driver or can'= t you > > enable/disable the functional Ah, I must have context-switched when writing this mail.. and forgot to delete this part, sorry. You can ignore. > Performance with multi file segments is worse than non-zero copy,= so there is no reason to implement. [snip] > > I don't like the name of this API, since it gives the impression it ret= urns > > "segments".. > > But on the other hand, this is aligned with the mcfg field: people touc= hing the > > internals have more chances to see there is an exported API. > > Do you have any suggestions? How about rte_mcfg_get_single_file_s= egments_parameter()? Nop, let's keep it as you proposed. Thanks. --=20 David Marchand