From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4233DA00C4; Wed, 28 Sep 2022 14:52:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F78427F4; Wed, 28 Sep 2022 14:52:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wr1-f41.google.com (mail-wr1-f41.google.com [209.85.221.41]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0AAB4113C for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2022 14:52:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr1-f41.google.com with SMTP id bk15so11894216wrb.13 for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2022 05:52:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind.com; s=google; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=Wayrh5VSDC8h4VjhlOsnXVobx+GtL+cfovkUcXBAtuk=; b=b45i3Ema6A3qTAz3IVBU7QfuaUI8PGJZsY6XX5+QXHcudmpNUx1t3lTAje6JVKBWNA 4nqEfD3wSPdoynqgZbqKaVKdmpv4bccAmsdK63AhMUNN/BBqDP9sbWrR2Ai9Unq1Uwxm ecjCML5WZnycUoDW/yPJRlaadpOf8b6H5VkDYugaSPBt4ZOUdetGCY21yC+zBiYs7y45 bPT5UHmY/GHgPRd8d7MfqTKxTDTOdsC2LM9Vz0YuFYxd+ZJL+M7k6MVj+6coMH+s2eT0 ITwYfgZ/pRdl3StyfFsY44H/zzq7Lju5I39aiGgsO7C8Rg+1NFs27Gb7fslN8SlPCtiH J2ow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=Wayrh5VSDC8h4VjhlOsnXVobx+GtL+cfovkUcXBAtuk=; b=4PbEIetk/+fXFHOlUpgQUxdW6sFZ9HxjdMAaBu6xMdg7WlRIq20yvG8gQZ92GybaEw wnSv4CjJ9fGuPZgwPj2jIEJc2d2BbQZxyLBsTUy1d9zMCJl+rcUc6hCdc+l8AevIktbY bikvBye7CfjRsq1NiMFq9KenmEcUTrbbC3vw35Hf1seRfabfTv++yrQ/A23jSrF/sh80 y+Khn8Y+5gAehufyZ7ebvgoNudCzvVU184TMFdKPbgtHuSU6LygAutMe5hoCcQFVFeFf Jk82aLnKOe9iokV1gwop8mzDit1xv9nLJG3lRlPCli0NkGZpODpDHEDVMjPV8mL5dpng BtWg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf15Uwjg49HmN+f4PVU22fGSjGp34yr1cS8tnyGzdX31XGvEwEU6 gKgT0jrYNLCP0wjJC95xXM7rBg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6/k40GQTDOE4Y4q9P7ey+vQj+mKhu0oALzf+5dnEOFEfv0WnGRb++VO5emKjBynX89lPrI2Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:186d:b0:22a:45a3:7935 with SMTP id d13-20020a056000186d00b0022a45a37935mr20147135wri.209.1664369568316; Wed, 28 Sep 2022 05:52:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 6wind.com ([2a01:e0a:5ac:6460:c065:401d:87eb:9b25]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w9-20020adfee49000000b0022add371ed2sm4114743wro.55.2022.09.28.05.52.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 28 Sep 2022 05:52:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 14:52:47 +0200 From: Olivier Matz To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Shijith Thotton , dev@dpdk.org, pbhagavatula@marvell.com, Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com, jerinj@marvell.com, mb@smartsharesystems.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, david.marchand@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] mbuf: add second dynamic field member for VA only build Message-ID: References: <20220907134340.3629224-1-sthotton@marvell.com> <5861713.UjTJXf6HLC@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5861713.UjTJXf6HLC@thomas> X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 09:24:51AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 21/09/2022 15:56, Shijith Thotton: > > mbuf physical address field is not used in builds which only uses VA. It > > is used to expand the dynamic field area. > > > > Signed-off-by: Shijith Thotton > > We cannot condition the use of the dynamic field. > I think it is enough justification to reject this patch. I don't think it is an issue. > And about adding a compilation option for IOVA in the first patch of this series, > I think it is not the direction the majority wants DPDK to go. > We tend to avoid compilation options. In general, I agree that we don't want to have many custom compile-time options, especially if they impact ABI. It has several issues that have already been widely discussed. However, in this specific case, we can suppose that removing buf_iova is a long-term goal (in years). Having this compile-time option is a way to test this approach, and progressively prepare the drivers to support it. Then, in few years (if we are still convinced), we may announce an abi breakage and switch to this new mode by default. Olivier