From: "Luse, Paul E" <paul.e.luse@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"olivier.matz@6wind.com" <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Question about recent change to rte_mbuf struct - user data and udata64 feels (breaks SPDK)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:55:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BYAPR11MB38314BA4937BC64B48B58B5BADE00@BYAPR11MB3831.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2681525.FU5bBsX61N@thomas>
Great, thanks for the quick response!!
-Paul
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 2:30 AM
To: Luse, Paul E <paul.e.luse@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org <dev@dpdk.org>, olivier.matz@6wind.com <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Question about recent change to rte_mbuf struct - user data and udata64 feels (breaks SPDK)
Hi,
19/11/2020 01:17, Luse, Paul E:
> Hi,
>
> Recently this patch https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/commit/5284adad3e95025f9901869f581c8c04ea642d32 made the following change:
>
> * mbuf: Removed the unioned fields ``userdata`` and ``udata64``
> from the structure ``rte_mbuf``. It is replaced with dynamic fields.
>
> Which breaks the SPDK project’s crypto and compression capabilities as we use userdata to store context for our operation so it can be retrieved upcon completion of the operation. It’s not clear to me that we are safe to use the fields that were added:
>
> uint64_t dynfield1[2]; /**< Reserved for dynamic fields. */
> uint64_t dynfield1[3]; /**< Reserved for dynamic fields. */
>
> based on the comments. Can someone please advise, why was this done and can we use these fields?
We are doing some API changes in DPDK 20.11.
The mbuf changes were explained one year ago:
http://fast.dpdk.org/events/slides/DPDK-2019-09-Dynamic_mbuf.pdf
The API for dynamic fields is available since DPDK 19.11:
http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/mbuf_lib.html#dynamic-fields-and-flags
If you want an example, look how it is used in example apps.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-19 17:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-19 0:17 Luse, Paul E
2020-11-19 9:29 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-19 14:55 ` Luse, Paul E [this message]
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=BYAPR11MB38314BA4937BC64B48B58B5BADE00@BYAPR11MB3831.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
--to=paul.e.luse@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).