[dpdk-users] difference between rte_eth_tx_buffer and rte_eth_tx_burst

[dpdk-users] difference between rte_eth_tx_buffer and rte_eth_tx_burst

[Yuliang Li]

Hi all,

I am new to DPDK. I found 2 functions that can send packets:
rte_eth_tx_buffer and rte_eth_tx_burst. I am confused about why we need
these two different functions. To me, I can use only rte_eth_tx_burst, and
rte_eth_tx_buffer does add more functional capability. Are there any other
concerns like performance or others that we need these two functions?

Thanks,
-- 
Yuliang Li
PhD student
Department of Computer Science
Yale University

Re: [dpdk-users] difference between rte_eth_tx_buffer and rte_eth_tx_burst

[Wiles, Keith]

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Yuliang Li <yuliang.li@yale.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I am new to DPDK. I found 2 functions that can send packets:
> rte_eth_tx_buffer and rte_eth_tx_burst. I am confused about why we need
> these two different functions. To me, I can use only rte_eth_tx_burst, and
> rte_eth_tx_buffer does add more functional capability. Are there any other
> concerns like performance or others that we need these two functions?

The best place to find out this type of information is to read the emails around the rte_eth_tx_buffer APIs in the archives. You may want to refine the search.

https://mail-archive.com/search?a=1&l=dev%40dpdk.org&o=newest&haswords=rte_eth_tx_buffer

> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Yuliang Li
> PhD student
> Department of Computer Science
> Yale University

Regards,
Keith

Re: [dpdk-users] difference between rte_eth_tx_buffer and rte_eth_tx_burst

[Yuliang Li]

Thanks Keith. This is very helpful!

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles@intel.com> wrote:

>
> > On Mar 4, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Yuliang Li <yuliang.li@yale.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am new to DPDK. I found 2 functions that can send packets:
> > rte_eth_tx_buffer and rte_eth_tx_burst. I am confused about why we need
> > these two different functions. To me, I can use only rte_eth_tx_burst,
> and
> > rte_eth_tx_buffer does add more functional capability. Are there any
> other
> > concerns like performance or others that we need these two functions?
>
> The best place to find out this type of information is to read the emails
> around the rte_eth_tx_buffer APIs in the archives. You may want to refine
> the search.
>
> https://mail-archive.com/search?a=1&l=dev%40dpdk.org&o=
> newest&haswords=rte_eth_tx_buffer
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Yuliang Li
> > PhD student
> > Department of Computer Science
> > Yale University
>
> Regards,
> Keith
>
>


-- 
Yuliang Li
PhD student
Department of Computer Science
Yale University

Re: [dpdk-users] difference between rte_eth_tx_buffer and rte_eth_tx_burst

[Thomas Monjalon]

2017-03-05 15:22, Wiles, Keith:
> 
> > On Mar 4, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Yuliang Li <yuliang.li@yale.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I am new to DPDK. I found 2 functions that can send packets:
> > rte_eth_tx_buffer and rte_eth_tx_burst. I am confused about why we need
> > these two different functions. To me, I can use only rte_eth_tx_burst, and
> > rte_eth_tx_buffer does add more functional capability. Are there any other
> > concerns like performance or others that we need these two functions?
> 
> The best place to find out this type of information is to read the emails around the rte_eth_tx_buffer APIs in the archives. You may want to refine the search.
> 
> https://mail-archive.com/search?a=1&l=dev%40dpdk.org&o=newest&haswords=rte_eth_tx_buffer

The best place should be the documentation :)
If someone is missing in the doc, please tell us what or make a patch.
Thanks