From: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mbuf:rearrange mbuf to be more mbuf chain friendly
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:06:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <73B00DD6-F266-4A76-8C4E-F875C16D6977@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1706546.bAg9N1Gdxd@xps13>
On 6/27/16, 4:05 AM, "Thomas Monjalon" <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
>2016-06-27 10:27, Olivier Matz:
>> On 06/27/2016 10:21 AM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Keith Wiles
>> >> Move the next pointer to the first cacheline of the rte_mbuf structure
>> >> and move the offload values to the second cacheline to give better
>> >> performance to applications using chained mbufs.
>> >>
>> >> Enabled by a configuration option CONFIG_RTE_MBUF_CHAIN_FRIENDLY default
>> >> is set to No.
>> >
>> > First, it would make ixgbe and i40e vector RX functions to work incorrectly.
>> > Second, I don't think we can afford to allow people swap mbuf fields in the way they like.
>> > Otherwise we'll end-up with totally unmaintainable code pretty soon.
>> > So NACK.
>>
>> +1
>
>To be more precise, the arrangement of fields in rte_mbuf is open
>to debate and changes.
>There is a recent discussion here:
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-May/039483.html
>
>I think we must try to improve few things in mbuf during the 16.11 cycle.
>But it must not be allowed to have a build option to adapt this structure
>or any other API. There is only one DPDK API for a given version.
I just received a private email thread on this one and it appears it is not a big of a problem as was stated before. ☹ So yes we can reject this one.
Someone rejected these in patchwork already, which I expected I would be the one to reject the patches. Is this not the case? I understand if the patch just hangs round, but I would have expected after the list rejected the patch I would be the one to reject the patches. I try to keep up with my patches and rejecting a patch before I have a chance to do so seems a bit harsh to me.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-27 13:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-25 15:29 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Keith Wiles
2016-06-25 15:48 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-06-25 15:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Keith Wiles
2016-06-27 8:21 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-06-27 8:27 ` Olivier Matz
2016-06-27 9:05 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-06-27 13:06 ` Wiles, Keith [this message]
2016-06-27 14:30 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=73B00DD6-F266-4A76-8C4E-F875C16D6977@intel.com \
--to=keith.wiles@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).