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 E4607A04B6; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:49:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D185E2AB; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:49:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12264235 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:49:16 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1573487356; 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=+89cFuoDP4lm/w6i264T2GNPJZjIl0bbUiMXDnqKdE4=; b=CFRTlDzSzArWF29pf/1WLsvaOol1/q90CUXRq4MFLvQO6qYF2FCBVxRzZgBMHGkBBz8FQ2 HbYAr+9nVIFqx8vo57qQbDUaMXR83aTuEdIn6Va2gYWLcXI7pBorXXNfqie6o9+EDc6r3/ TE59s6yoUP+i3qEAf2dwWNBQPTLt8RQ= Received: from mail-vs1-f71.google.com (mail-vs1-f71.google.com [209.85.217.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-130-3M8x_2eGPZ-G5ZhIbN4Ihg-1; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:49:15 -0500 Received: by mail-vs1-f71.google.com with SMTP id e18so2942448vsp.8 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:49:15 -0800 (PST) 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=IUZy6gL7O9f/lX2GUaTuezDItcSX7ktGihWlOjoodM4=; b=dHmb+EEE+iFW2JEY8jE/Ifk5cg7xmkiG3ddJ4O1GDCnsanXBL7kYV+MROIIT5LFbpU 4rsYQmHUrpv5OeTJhuImr8efevvj97FptO2+DZHSShSN+HDtALbDUQ84jLA9RYzKlxkk rBeEY9S8tQK1EXJEL1JejrV0b6nyiCg9f3d5t40RTGupb2eXEGl75eExOcvJrs4yQ8hy Y1PMJWOmDvNKNDFAObwnnMiqmA4dd51O1YfycXga0JaDqqHfCxCUqRXAqcvH4PFH2wMH aSV597ZWQFb7RRW7Oyj7fd4QwKv+fx8I1LyhM/V+FNFEM+JuRMsg52KmQ10wI9SJTtKK qc7Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVK5nv408zyOoWZfLKNpmgn4ealDMTDSgoZMJa1+my2jaWVVOCv UhR7zaAcy1IThsEQsq4tWUClPPlcnG2pe+qHNoQS1olcMhHzDNWn/F/Ybakw/CpOYPwwFqsEtiE B5MJyr67bSdjEdBIbecE= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:7c01:: with SMTP id x1mr3395856vkc.15.1573487354813; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:49:14 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyBo/xkHwsiGu1yuttzgYpftU1681lBwBlNozqlLmf78lbdCHj7v8lOh22G/U974xiwZEHb2P4Ph1/mkUegJOg= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:7c01:: with SMTP id x1mr3395807vkc.15.1573487354368; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:49:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190822081833.11203-1-jgrajcia@cisco.com> <20191104110300.8369-1-jgrajcia@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:49:03 +0100 Message-ID: To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Anatoly Burakov , Jakub Grajciar , dev X-MC-Unique: 3M8x_2eGPZ-G5ZhIbN4Ihg-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6] 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 Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 4:21 PM Ferruh Yigit wrote= : > > On 11/4/2019 11:03 AM, Jakub Grajciar wrote: > > Zero-copy slave support for memif PMD. > > Slave interface exposes DPDK memory to > > master interface. Only single file segments > > are supported (EAL option --single-file-segments). > > > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Grajciar > > --- > > doc/guides/nics/memif.rst | 42 +- > > drivers/net/memif/Makefile | 1 + > > drivers/net/memif/memif_socket.c | 65 +-- > > drivers/net/memif/meson.build | 1 + > > drivers/net/memif/rte_eth_memif.c | 449 +++++++++++++++++- > > drivers/net/memif/rte_eth_memif.h | 11 +- > > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_mcfg.c | 7 + > > .../common/include/rte_eal_memconfig.h | 13 + > > lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map | 1 + > > 9 files changed, 516 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-) > > net/memif part looks good to me, > > @David, @Anatoly, any concern on new eal API, is it good to go? I am okay with exposing such an info from the mem config since it was exposed before. It will be experimental anyway. --=20 David Marchand