From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08930594F for ; Fri, 23 May 2014 16:32:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from was59-1-82-226-113-214.fbx.proxad.net ([82.226.113.214] helo=[192.168.0.10]) by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WnqYM-0005qc-M1; Fri, 23 May 2014 16:34:42 +0200 Message-ID: <537F5C18.7030603@6wind.com> Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 16:32:56 +0200 From: Olivier MATZ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Thomas Monjalon , "Shaw, Jeffrey B" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Venkatesan, Venky" , "nhorman@tuxdriver.com" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" References: <1400507789-18453-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <466924555.DZ26nc55Es@xps13> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580EFA84CD@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580EFA84CD@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 00/17] add TSO support X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 14:32:49 -0000 Hi Konstantin, > I don't see any big changes in the v2 of that patch. > > At least both things that I have concerns about, stay unchanged in > the v2: > > 1) merge physaddr and buf_len in a bitfield - I still think we better > keep physaddr as 64bit field (PATCH 5). As nobody reacted to our discussion thread [1] with other arguments, I stayed on my initial position: - 2 bytes more in the mbuf structure is always good to have - no performance impact detected (see my test reports) - the 48 bits physical address limit will be reached in several years, and at this time, maybe the cache lines will be 128 bytes? (solving our initial rte_mbuf issue). So let's just deal with current or near future hardware. > 2) fix_tcp_phdr_cksum() is inside ixgbe TX function, while I think it > should be moved out of it to the upper layer (PATCH 11). Thomas's answer on this question [2] was to do that way, so I did not modify the v1 patches. Regards, Olivier [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002454.html [2] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002531.html