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 DCA353975 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:53:30 +0100 (CET) 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 1XqPlK-00014A-Sc; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:06:54 +0100 Message-ID: <546A2A69.5080004@6wind.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:03:37 +0100 From: Olivier MATZ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Walukiewicz, Miroslaw" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Thomas Monjalon References: <1415635166-1364-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <1415984609-2484-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <1415984609-2484-3-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <7C4248CAE043B144B1CD242D275626532FDFFE4E@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <7C4248CAE043B144B1CD242D275626532FDFFE4E@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "jigsaw@gmail.com" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 02/13] ixgbe: fix remaining pkt_flags variable size to 64 bits 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: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:53:31 -0000 Hi Miroslaw, On 11/17/2014 05:47 PM, Walukiewicz, Miroslaw wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] >> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 6:03 PM >> To: dev@dpdk.org >> Cc: olivier.matz@6wind.com; Walukiewicz, Miroslaw; Liu, Jijiang; Liu, Yong; >> jigsaw@gmail.com; Richardson, Bruce >> Subject: [PATCH v2 02/13] ixgbe: fix remaining pkt_flags variable size to 64 >> bits >> >> Since commit 4332beee9 "mbuf: expand ol_flags field to 64-bits", the >> packet flags are now 64 bits wide. Some occurences were forgotten in >> the ixgbe driver. > > I think it should be present in separate patch. I do no not see any relation to TSO You are right, there is no relation with TSO. The reason why I initially added it in the same patchset is because I discovered this bug while implementing TSO and I wanted to avoid too much noise on the list. I can take out some patches from the series, but maybe it's too late and it would confuse patchwork. Thomas, what do you think? Regards, Olivier