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 DB493A04DD; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:32:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 581822B9D; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:32:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A336F1D9E for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:32:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0915C0046; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:32:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:32:34 -0400 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= oI1Aq9Bw9fBraZIw8RS7ZfRU+Yj161Q7L6neMviXr9c=; b=Q4F8noD6B7jIP7BQ z7Blp20Bi6Zzd8v3IBoDSgBoL5ILVd/L6WbIP5NbnwkYUf987FmsL+ATOUP7L4s1 Ws41h7fzBMpOEUkAFTYdQUUz5VzRnxykwJPpxQ3QwadGcBsj67umn4mTKCYuLQwB s+HGz+mKQ4kJQiePXmcveZTfOaag9s25KsKdw/JNJitqd6wevgzLFL5bFPIeCLXw YNOugX5JmySbjvreMCqnqZ5fC0Av5FCLCJi/1ZrpmQ3g5zZTVstEtHUs+QhevJyR 1OlMi+t42kJE8/laYtwX7GsFRx5It12xnGDdQoKqnf/2aACuQ8b4QLMIUxUXu9fL 3RXwag== 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=oI1Aq9Bw9fBraZIw8RS7ZfRU+Yj161Q7L6neMviXr 9c=; b=HhO4XSG1iapwktW4QEZ0Cm8k7/gt54EzOoQfdAA/BtDvX4RzVhLbUWeCM +nP+piFWOXNvdFZP9z0fVlhnas5kP73v/wwsnkA4x86TRPfRof6lhcDIABzmxhlx z46zm6xmTEHQTEB/oA3yURWFjkKLNDeJ/dHGzoQ6FfNHMkzWVjj4p1ln+R69wA/S UU1/V2L+DNpFWI++0fInbGRE5R+hZ0qt44NJo+UbmWRcEH7oMjwYYJWihxuDKehe kQy6w6YeIoQof82cCMDfeewXUerJhAWzH3Lxo5828Nem0uujVcmM9cpUhtmRnYut dthhRs2MXs3ZE2aYoIxvMJ8DDj+9w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrkeejgdehgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvth 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 C293F3064683; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:32:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: David Marchand , dev , "Yigit, Ferruh" , Bruce Richardson , Olivier Matz , Andrew Rybchenko , Akhil Goyal , John McNamara Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:32:31 +0100 Message-ID: <4243805.kL3ifM6l98@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20201026075310.76f01bfd@hermes.local> References: <20201026052105.1561859-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <5174433.N81YqoJXJ2@thomas> <20201026075310.76f01bfd@hermes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 14/15] examples/rxtx_callbacks: switch to dynamic mbuf field 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" 26/10/2020 15:53, Stephen Hemminger: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:33:14 +0100 > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 26/10/2020 11:43, David Marchand: > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 6:21 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > > The example used the deprecated mbuf field udata64. > > > > It is moved to a dynamic field in order to allow removal of udata64. > > > > > > > > Note: RTE_MBUF_DYNFIELD_TIMESTAMP_NAME is an existing mbuf field name. > > > > > > I am a bit lost. > > > How is this going to work as the mbuf timestamp field is used in this > > > example too? > > > > Oh, you're right! > > I will change the naming scheme to a custom "TSC" field. > > Since timestamp is still there why doesn't the example just use that? This is what I did, but it's wrong because it is a different timestamp. The example is doing a comparison of timestamps (AFAIU).