From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6726EA04DD; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 10:29:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41CE6F3E; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 10:29:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E560DED for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 10:29:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 117B7F50; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 04:29:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 19 Nov 2020 04:29:41 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= m0++yf3kRBmS/FVNEZtq6Vt+fJpKMEXtIGrxYEpEbQo=; b=pTDIhgxZeerMhsBg 8naZawzGnvHN8X0xwrsc/+d5Fcwx1BDQ64eq4VUATPPfsh1vVX4ZrJt2bMsvTRXi OcHPS9x2sm3IcdTk5qMffyxXUTdBjr4K0SPAzvHvDWC/RDFx5P9kRPf0mRdKyw0J U9izY4PztpjWWPs/+1+wj4vOjsEBB0n2etYjiBkYjFjUleSIsKX2SbCcXq9oRK+3 eKTgTwKx8hZRPDSj2Xgwhp0xCYhfqmZQ2evUTYVBV+qKIlRhHKcHTLmFUwCLkkAu OxmWvBBXJ5ficYIwOfzfc3smi5tQMG6qjaUiatCTmc+/775BQYWujhbNbAEv3lWf jn4l7A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=m0++yf3kRBmS/FVNEZtq6Vt+fJpKMEXtIGrxYEpEb Qo=; b=k/vbuV1MAV0Ai0qb7J20UMalRCCnMyMovPHUbNTX/+7vPxBgu+ZSWWgMs Omr9ZXMWYKla140fHvzw6E0TL5U9EVRn7xDC2wfW8jXlc3UFci1czTCwoIfnhYJU f4QedP3B9KlI7elRzL+OX8Om7mMyMPAgUJ/ZE2poJJyXVADcjuRG/O42JEuP2ubi gY5WOfzK+CtIU1PvO0pXp/IhUGY+vYJjVDElLvn39q2ARUYDuZ399/km3s2/mGvY VU74LmzfZ9T0kvCqlMegjENybuMAx4mgwqmSQxq43tC+gW6H6W8rpkchbqdu9Yam HfqZ7gsXfy3TdDskFUMXnTSMDYicA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrudefjedgtdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgeehvdelfeefgfeuueejkeetteehueffvdeiuddtieeggefhieef udefleekffegnecuffhomhgrihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtghomhdpughpughkrdhorhhgne cukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecu rfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DF3C93064AA6; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 04:29:39 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Luse, Paul E" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , olivier.matz@6wind.com Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 10:29:37 +0100 Message-ID: <2681525.FU5bBsX61N@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Question about recent change to rte_mbuf struct - user data and udata64 feels (breaks SPDK) X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi, 19/11/2020 01:17, Luse, Paul E: > Hi, >=20 > Recently this patch https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/commit/5284adad3e95025f9= 901869f581c8c04ea642d32 made the following change: >=20 > * mbuf: Removed the unioned fields ``userdata`` and ``udata64`` > from the structure ``rte_mbuf``. It is replaced with dynamic fields. >=20 > Which breaks the SPDK project=E2=80=99s crypto and compression capabiliti= es as we use userdata to store context for our operation so it can be retri= eved upcon completion of the operation. It=E2=80=99s not clear to me that = we are safe to use the fields that were added: >=20 > uint64_t dynfield1[2]; /**< Reserved for dynamic fields. */ > uint64_t dynfield1[3]; /**< Reserved for dynamic fields. */ >=20 > based on the comments. Can someone please advise, why was this done and = can we use these fields? We are doing some API changes in DPDK 20.11. The mbuf changes were explained one year ago: http://fast.dpdk.org/events/slides/DPDK-2019-09-Dynamic_mbuf.pdf The API for dynamic fields is available since DPDK 19.11: http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/mbuf_lib.html#dynamic-fields-and-flags If you want an example, look how it is used in example apps.