From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B141B3B9 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:12:24 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Nov 2018 05:12:23 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,290,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="114586241" Received: from tiagolam-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.251.84.226]) ([10.251.84.226]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2018 05:12:22 -0800 To: Ferruh Yigit , dev@dpdk.org, linville@tuxdriver.com References: <1542707697-175836-1-git-send-email-tiago.lam@intel.com> <1542709592-215007-1-git-send-email-tiago.lam@intel.com> <1542709592-215007-3-git-send-email-tiago.lam@intel.com> <59e1bdba-331b-e337-56e7-dc4f52057d56@intel.com> From: "Lam, Tiago" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:12:18 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <59e1bdba-331b-e337-56e7-dc4f52057d56@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/3] net/af_packet: get 'framesz' from the iface's MTU X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:12:25 -0000 On 27/11/2018 17:43, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 11/20/2018 10:26 AM, Tiago Lam wrote: >> Use the underlying MTU to calculate the framsize to be used for the mmap >> RINGs. This is to make it more flexible on deployments with different >> MTU requirements, instead of using a pre-defined value of 2048B. > > This behavior change should be documented in af_packet documentation which is > missing unfortunately. > Would you able to introduce the initial/basic af_packet doc to at least to > document device argument? If not please let me know, I can work on it. > Thanks for the review, Ferruh. Yeah, I don't mind cooking something up and submitting here for review; I'll wait a couple of days for a reply from John W. before proceeding, though. But given there's no documentation for af_packet yet, do you prefer to wait for that to be available, and apply it all together? Or could that be applied later as part of another patch? Tiago.