From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594DC532D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 04:39:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27])
 by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2016 19:39:02 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,409,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="773532795"
Received: from fmsmsx103.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.201])
 by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2016 19:39:02 -0700
Received: from shsmsx151.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.6.50) by
 FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:38:54 -0700
Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.232]) by
 SHSMSX151.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.18]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002;
 Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:38:28 +0800
From: "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
To: Clearasu <clearasu@gmail.com>
CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev]  is ixgbe supporting multi-segment mbuf?
Thread-Index: AQHRiS/iWcO2It+bjEq0c0BtdpCh759vnPCw//+BzICAAJVmUA==
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 02:38:27 +0000
Message-ID: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09090343FAE1@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <CAKj5Mju2SuQFGAtmq_RX1sQCSVGbFq2EfS58TpHn4BZym6_d1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09090343FA66@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <C0B8A5ED-D3F0-45CC-87B4-B52B812AA7D6@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C0B8A5ED-D3F0-45CC-87B4-B52B812AA7D6@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] is ixgbe supporting multi-segment mbuf?
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 02:39:04 -0000

Hi Clarylin,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clearasu [mailto:clearasu@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 9:38 AM
> To: Lu, Wenzhuo
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] is ixgbe supporting multi-segment mbuf?
>=20
> Hi Wenzhuo,
>=20
> Thanks. For some reason, we have to stick to dpdk 2.0 for now. Is multi-s=
egment
> mbuf supported in this version (any known issue with multi-seg in this ve=
rsion?)
> or do we have to upgrade to latest dpdk version for multi-segment support=
?
Yes, I suggest to try at least 2.1.  It should help.
And to my opinion, the newer the better. As you know there'll be more funct=
ions and less bugs :)

>=20
> Clarylin
>=20
> > On Mar 28, 2016, at 6:10 PM, Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi  Clarylin,
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Clarylin L
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 4:24 AM
> >> To: dev@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] is ixgbe supporting multi-segment mbuf?
> >>
> >> ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts was set to be the rx function. Receiving
> >> packets
> > I see this function is already deprecated. Do you use an old version? W=
ould
> you like to try the newest code?
> >
> >> smaller than mbuf size works perfectly. However, if an incoming
> >> packet is greater than the maximum acceptable length of one "mbuf"
> >> data size, receiving does not work. In this case, isn't it supposed to=
 use mbuf
> chaining to receive?
> >>
> >> The port has both jumbo_frame and enable_scatter being on. are these
> >> two flags good enough to make mbuf chaining going?