From: Don Provan <dprovan@bivio.net>
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>,
Jay Rolette <rolette@infinite.io>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
John Daley <johndale@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] removing mbuf error flags
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 01:41:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CY1PR0101MB0987A32E5F89C0031B7F54B6A0670@CY1PR0101MB0987.prod.exchangelabs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5723CACD.40408@6wind.com>
>From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:58 PM
>
>The point is today it's broken, and no application running on top of DPDK
>check these flags because they are set to 0. If we decide to assign a value
>to these flags, it will break the working applications because they don't
>expect to receive invalid packets. Maybe a proper solution would be to
>enable these flags on demand in PMD configuration, and add a feature
>flag for this feature.
It's not broken, it just doesn't do anything. Yes, such a feature *has* to be explicitly requested by the application. By default, broken packets should not be delivered.
>I think we should not keep things half-done too long. It's confusing and useless as-is.
Fine with me. I don't see how it's confusing, but, from what you're saying, it is clearly useless. The only reason to keep it would be that if such a feature is added in the future, it could be added without changing the mbuf structure, but I don't know whether that's important.
-don provan
dprovan@bivio.net
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-30 1:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-29 12:25 Olivier Matz
2016-04-29 17:47 ` John Daley (johndale)
2016-04-29 18:16 ` Don Provan
2016-04-29 18:24 ` Jay Rolette
2016-04-29 20:00 ` Arnon Warshavsky
2016-04-29 20:57 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-04-30 1:41 ` Don Provan [this message]
2016-05-10 8:40 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC] mbuf: remove unused rx " Olivier Matz
2016-05-12 1:32 ` John Daley (johndale)
2016-05-12 9:25 ` Olivier MATZ
2016-05-23 7:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: remove unused Rx " Olivier Matz
2016-06-13 11:39 ` Olivier Matz
2016-06-13 12:39 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-06-13 14:00 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-06-13 12:42 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-06-13 12:49 ` Olivier Matz
2016-06-13 13:25 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-06-13 13:52 ` 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=CY1PR0101MB0987A32E5F89C0031B7F54B6A0670@CY1PR0101MB0987.prod.exchangelabs.com \
--to=dprovan@bivio.net \
--cc=arnon@qwilt.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=helin.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=johndale@cisco.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=rolette@infinite.io \
/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).