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 29ECDA0524; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 16:53:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7122B99; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 16:53:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70DF2B8D for ; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 16:53:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C989E0; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 10:52:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 06 Dec 2020 10:53:00 -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= ZE2jZFX2x39brVjaPenvsTGeMdp2niOzzeZS5N1BQs0=; b=OhldQILkZB4CJQs0 fCCOqDY1AET2uzdseE+A4mHXVor9Vfq9uBXIKC6/h5ArwOABwQ6Ha32YpQqJkzqv RDmk/8kEkc01A9czk7R+SchWLbP3dDGhbNC7/2xMDtjpZWatShXJ7TBvWXCJ6VsG w7GGN2mINu+KWuBT2NRZ5i+kvRvPexcEVgriP39BnPT1bYW8PYxf19O9nhEKkIHd 13JxWrTsuJQV4vhWzIIanwk2UXpaguqC7nC98okPp3RPnOleUfHkB4UW9fHop8J3 w6vE6bdTAkmMMli3IsgMDGXlvTEqWd0fmssR2udklt8z7brHAvlqNx2JGZEbbc4q 72wfPw== 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=ZE2jZFX2x39brVjaPenvsTGeMdp2niOzzeZS5N1BQ s0=; b=F8Z2yskfPy7Y/U2LDclAKHlP++ZAhU/VHgk2j3waO9WLqLgK8IAFOsDIF snBWJHL15C8gT9kQqYRVl2npH0vwgfOtzRXdkw48qIH1l5bfOIODvLZvMRqbDDuy RysXUnfzrqEZIxL+wypIlUuHVlkfAYVsR9DuOsP01kAx7eImRILOlzcyN63kkc3I 77Yjn4ZGrSdaptEMLJtW5wPyM6Zj/YoAszFc1OrSAWBk/lYssdFQ11hnq0LZ7PqQ vuo0/csbs+KKa/+OYiff2WSIOqDcoNINS7sN3elmm4e8T6/7JAW32rXfLwDY1fzm BsOIY6D9RGYwZAOx4Hy+WYhZBTkVg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrudejvddgkedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght 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 481F824005A; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 10:52:58 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ed Czeck , Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev@dpdk.org, ferruh.yigit@intel.com, shepard.siegel@atomicrules.com, john.miller@atomicrules.com, olivier.matz@6wind.com Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 16:52:56 +0100 Message-ID: <2820958.vaCdlQsBOK@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20201204143120.5c488d36@hermes.local> References: <20201204202745.24675-1-ed.czeck@atomicrules.com> <20201204143120.5c488d36@hermes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ark: export ark timestamp dynfield offset 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" 04/12/2020 23:31, Stephen Hemminger: > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:27:45 -0500 > Ed Czeck wrote: > > > Access to mbuf dynfields in application code requires variable > > export through header and dynamic library. > > > > Fixes: a926951a606f ("net/ark: switch Rx timestamp to dynamic mbuf field") > > Cc: thomas@monjalon.net > > > > Signed-off-by: Ed Czeck > > Not happy with having offsets exposed from driver. > > Expopsing weird offsets for their special fields > is worse than the old model. > > Why not use standardized field name and have the application lookup that? > There is an API already for that. Yes lookup should be used.