From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <saurabh.globe@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-vk0-f44.google.com (mail-vk0-f44.google.com
 [209.85.213.44]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E429567A;
 Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:02:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-vk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id k1so81001120vkb.2;
 Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:02:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
 bh=fm8Co2TnaCmmAxF9MzFhtuPqI130lLKtNEkbMoTkLtU=;
 b=OxPz9jKhtKaZ7P2zsIGIlByhmTimawpjTmxHpZRiiRa3eaute4FwRILH1x5Rluy6hL
 DsgCIpdcrKm0vxvmtSkxtU4L1RWZzmwXD7EE3yvasBJzQF6YX3sCwriKsdWTIM9InGPs
 l/su2EtcHscWVOwHHKjij5seDYj8dFo0StG9SyBcVAQIbxB2NOWQAHLwQrsNaRZntz84
 NX6xGCaOHvfDfu2ZEyDN++UmI2ky/uQOsJWiG8LfyttHPatj2Pv7/j2os2SWoVQ4IYcv
 5td3QCizV/TFkZ3K2GfdweRNZdz+Qz0IUTUdiEIGEBI+cs1Epl25jEfSv6kIjOSU+aok
 8Wwg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :content-type;
 bh=fm8Co2TnaCmmAxF9MzFhtuPqI130lLKtNEkbMoTkLtU=;
 b=h5ZDPezzCVco9/W+gxz9I9jHx6GoCOsCtkrvCMz6wyZlbeOi1DSOtn3840kIMqBTtR
 c4Pg8zSMaEk5Ofu6bzEcwHZN0zl+NeAoOr4B8otzXy3qgHh+bs8iNzTjPtMh4Vm+XWcj
 pMkrkc/RDULkHOVHFFXUceSad90xvOHaPhgvZjRUJ4fMSNgkxSIGuupANAE0hyZ0+XlS
 6YW+Oh54LhsNhB6w4WUONxNymmEd2608stAnMoINedlH8VK6rojWQUPJyFGVhJ/uMByz
 Wsqf455xb6fDZoI2nAeoQY4WJd+GOuQNCmMo9KHpiBY/FJF3L07ev/7mXaFWBuzb0XNP
 HfAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTyMceNZTy3VqWDm8v/57qy2PoVqE2WzNN2PHdMuRP7ndj86RIjldHUv9G5Myyg8WLo3Zjtdt+cDWoH5Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.54.23 with SMTP id d23mr12040512vka.25.1453755756390;
 Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:02:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.152.208 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:02:36 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:02:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMnwyJ3o+Sr4nTEk8658HXhP0ByZsjyZEMgKhFKh7s+pvPSW4Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Saurabh Mishra <saurabh.globe@gmail.com>
To: users@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: [dpdk-users] rte_mbuf size for jumbo frame
X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: usage discussions <users.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/users/>
List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:02:37 -0000

Hi,

We wanted to use 10400 bytes size of each rte_mbuf to enable Jumbo frames.
Do you guys see any problem with that? Would all the drivers like ixgbe,
i40e, vmxnet3, virtio and bnx2x work with larger rte_mbuf size?

We would want to avoid detailing with chained mbufs.

/Saurabh