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 5D52345920; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 18:30:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED0342EB0; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 18:30:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D4242E82 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 18:30:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED85FEC; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 09:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.57.17.223] (unknown [10.57.17.223]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CF533F73B; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 09:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 17:30:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dts: add ability to send/receive multiple packets Content-Language: en-GB To: =?UTF-8?Q?Juraj_Linke=C5=A1?= , dev@dpdk.org Cc: Jeremy Spewock , Honnappa Nagarahalli , Paul Szczepanek , Alex Chapman References: <20240806121417.2567708-1-Luca.Vizzarro@arm.com> <20240806124642.2580828-1-luca.vizzarro@arm.com> <20240806124642.2580828-2-luca.vizzarro@arm.com> <0053d46d-331d-4d2e-9d97-0cb0a668d240@pantheon.tech> From: Luca Vizzarro In-Reply-To: <0053d46d-331d-4d2e-9d97-0cb0a668d240@pantheon.tech> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 On 23/08/2024 11:17, Juraj Linkeš wrote: > Is it worthwhile to log the missing packets? It's not necessary, as the > received packets are logged elsewhere, but it would be convenient. On > the other hand, it could just unnecessarily bloat logs. I considered it but as you said I think it may unecessarily bloat the logs. The "unfiltered" packets can already be retrieved anyways if needed.