From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <doucette@bu.edu>
Received: from relay61.bu.edu (relay61.bu.edu [128.197.228.61])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BEF91B5F7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:38:36 +0200 (CEST)
X-Envelope-From: doucette@bu.edu
Received: from mail-wr0-f199.google.com (mail-wr0-f199.google.com
 [209.85.128.199])
 by relay61.bu.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id w5THcHnc001167
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:38:17 -0400
Received: by mail-wr0-f199.google.com with SMTP id b4-v6so4993436wrm.14
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 10:38:17 -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:in-reply-to:references:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=Mmaz/qxNxaufytVOFM4h80oB2DWv83uxtTee3Q2wMZg=;
 b=WlhI4/g2hJiR3zgA3hMDE3ug5FnbKx4NW4Si8pQdnzN9ucwONFf8U7Z5vTsIUEGqUR
 IZL/2+UxM1ZgKuva0+vHuv8C4YDz4CKKvbUFbBg9wTUBiAEgEcadMJ06fTcEaIBAiPRH
 aZsYCPe3+0e1BDBqf+zhsT6RKZqCiz/Z0JWmMJIvtYy3YUtlAVIVQENu15fiBe4LvHfR
 3AKePQo+IqYIHx+KUDKXKvzBTEIyAE3QDuzmHQxBo7VZezJ5YHaLc9KQ9dY8M/wSlb1Y
 781EOyKmJWRFeygO26bWtHRH9xRobPrrChmOL37Is+0/Us+BnaGGu/1jEUDWTNeLtoDk
 qIdA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E19Z6gXuj+V7z3LOag301xIHpk90qYEH8nG7fd/aAXi6G3RpJdT
 CzoNPgo8B3RwdD/FSt65Sv9TANVvAFE/q/AvC+CvldwJaQG368hOuDqJepPwXPYWIG14sC4KkiJ
 BhpRGYe8n6D07MX/xEXIu
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a8a:: with SMTP id 132-v6mr2552570wmk.44.1530293896803; 
 Fri, 29 Jun 2018 10:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfwmjXVNpAVphKVedNJbiHNASQEBG8tiDxjxjHKi4NN8Ajr1woMJBWZBWKTSQPqwZJxaFj4KmjNsoLONwOyVJA=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a8a:: with SMTP id 132-v6mr2552559wmk.44.1530293896466; 
 Fri, 29 Jun 2018 10:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a1c:b8e:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP;
 Fri, 29 Jun 2018 10:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258C0C45010@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <20180627014417.84133-1-doucette@bu.edu>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258C0C45010@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
From: Cody Doucette <doucette@bu.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:38:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJjX64Y0W4-zzAHWNpHJ9OY8HvesCa3gRtkPWJ8gdHeaUeVF5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Cc: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "michel@digirati.com.br" <michel@digirati.com.br>,
 Qiaobin Fu <qiaobinf@bu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ip_frag: extend
	rte_ipv6_frag_get_ipv6_fragment_header()
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:38:36 -0000

Hi,

> Just a generic thought - might be worse to move functions that parse ipv6 header extentions
> and related strcutures into rte_net.
> I am sure they might be reused by some other code.

Sorry, I am misunderstanding. Do you mean it might be better to move
struct ipv6_opt_hdr and ipv6_ext_hdr() into rte_net since they are not
fragmentation specific? That seems fine to me.

> pktmbuf_read() is quite heavy-weight one.
> Do we really need it here?
> From my perspective - add an assumption that all whole IPv6 header will be inside
> one segment seems reasonable enough.

It is my understanding that rte_pktmbuf_read() will almost always just
invoke a light weight rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(). It only runs the
heavy weight __rte_pktmbuf_read() in the case that the assumption you
mentioned is broken.

Thanks for looking!
Cody