From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <bruce.richardson@intel.com> Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD774CA6 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:34:56 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Mar 2019 03:34:55 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,474,1544515200"; d="scan'208";a="133933340" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.36]) by fmsmga007.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 13 Mar 2019 03:34:54 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 13 Mar 2019 10:34:53 +0000 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 10:34:52 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> Cc: dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20190313103452.GB1118972@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20190313100910.31260-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <20190313100910.31260-3-thomas@monjalon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190313100910.31260-3-thomas@monjalon.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.2 (2019-01-07) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] examples/ethtool: allocate only one mempool 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: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 10:34:57 -0000 On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:09:10AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > No need to allocate one mempool per port. > The number of mbufs is fixed for simplicity. > While it's simpler to use a fixed number of mbufs, having a fixed number of mbufs multiplied by the number of ports is safer IMHO, and not really that much more complicated. Otherwise, fully agree with the principle of the change. /Bruce