From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <keith.wiles@intel.com> Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95792FE5 for <users@dpdk.org>; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 16:22:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Mar 2017 07:22:21 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,248,1484035200"; d="scan'208";a="72426193" Received: from fmsmsx103.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.201]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2017 07:22:20 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx115.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.19) by FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 07:22:20 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx113.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.13.172]) by fmsmsx115.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.4]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 07:22:20 -0800 From: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com> To: Yuliang Li <yuliang.li@yale.edu> CC: "users@dpdk.org" <users@dpdk.org> Thread-Topic: [dpdk-users] difference between rte_eth_tx_buffer and rte_eth_tx_burst Thread-Index: AQHSlcRHMGvg61zd20mpokry3OJNGw== Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 15:22:20 +0000 Message-ID: <A540AE91-1095-4F2C-934F-3155C142D2C2@intel.com> References: <CAECc8jop=DtPm8WbAsgEA2J34rxPSCXWzCoWk9ASznRoG55iQA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAECc8jop=DtPm8WbAsgEA2J34rxPSCXWzCoWk9ASznRoG55iQA@mail.gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.254.49.209] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9C6576BCABF6E94395C905482CA68D8A@intel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] difference between rte_eth_tx_buffer and rte_eth_tx_burst X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions <users.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/users>, <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/users/> List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/users>, <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2017 15:22:23 -0000 > On Mar 4, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Yuliang Li <yuliang.li@yale.edu> wrote: >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > I am new to DPDK. I found 2 functions that can send packets: > rte_eth_tx_buffer and rte_eth_tx_burst. I am confused about why we need > these two different functions. To me, I can use only rte_eth_tx_burst, an= d > rte_eth_tx_buffer does add more functional capability. Are there any othe= r > concerns like performance or others that we need these two functions? The best place to find out this type of information is to read the emails a= round the rte_eth_tx_buffer APIs in the archives. You may want to refine th= e search. https://mail-archive.com/search?a=3D1&l=3Ddev%40dpdk.org&o=3Dnewest&hasword= s=3Drte_eth_tx_buffer >=20 > Thanks, > --=20 > Yuliang Li > PhD student > Department of Computer Science > Yale University Regards, Keith