Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: clean old refcnt option

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2015-03-31 21:26, Olivier MATZ:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On 03/31/2015 07:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > CONFIG_RTE_MBUF_SCATTER_GATHER was renamed into CONFIG_RTE_MBUF_REFCNT
> > by commit 62814bc2e923 and removed by commit 4769bc5a27cc.
> > Some traces remain because of delayed patches.
> > 
> > It can also be removed from doxygen config.
> > It is now poisoned in rte_mbuf.h to warn any misuse.
> > 
> > Fixes: d0dff9ba445e ("doc: sample application user guide")
> > Fixes: fc1f2750a3ec ("doc: programmers guide")
> > Fixes: 4769bc5a27cc ("mbuf: remove build option to disable refcnt")
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
[...]
> > --- a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/vhost.rst
> > +++ b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/vhost.rst
> > @@ -338,28 +338,6 @@ Compiling the Sample Code
> >  
> >      .. code-block:: console
> >  
> > -        make
> > -
> > -    .. note::
> > -
> > -        Note For zero copy, need firstly disable CONFIG_RTE_MBUF_SCATTER_GATHER,
> > -        CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IP_FRAG and CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_DISTRIBUTOR
> > -        in the config file and then re-configure and compile the core lib, and then build the application:
> > -
> > -    .. code-block:: console
> > -
> > -        vi ${RTE_SDK}/config/common_linuxapp
> > -
> > -    change it as follows:
> > -
> > -    ::
> > -
> > -        CONFIG_RTE_MBUF_SCATTER_GATHER=n
> > -        CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IP_FRAG=n
> > -        CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_DISTRIBUTOR=n
> > -
> > -    .. code-block:: console
> > -
> >          cd ${RTE_SDK}
> >          make config ${RTE_TARGET}
> >          make install ${RTE_TARGET}

Note that make config is useless and T= is missing.

> I have one doubt about the vhost part, as the previous doc was telling
> to disable refcnt option and now the behavior is equivalent to having
> the option always enabled. Also you are removing parts of doc that
> talk about CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_DISTRIBUTOR and CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IP_FRAG.
> 
> It would be safer to also have an acknowledgment from a vhost expert.

Huawei, Changchun, any opinion please?