> -----Original Message----- > From: Verma, Shally [mailto:shally.ve...@cavium.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 12:13 PM > To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>; Gupta, Ashish > <ashish.gu...@cavium.com>; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; Daly, Lee > <lee.d...@intel.com>; Sahu, Sunila <sunila.s...@cavium.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 3/4] compressdev: replace mbuf scatter gather flag > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo [mailto:pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com] > >Sent: 05 July 2018 16:36 > >To: Verma, Shally <shally.ve...@cavium.com>; Gupta, Ashish > ><ashish.gu...@cavium.com>; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; Daly, > >Lee <lee.d...@intel.com>; Sahu, Sunila <sunila.s...@cavium.com> > >Cc: dev@dpdk.org > >Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 3/4] compressdev: replace mbuf scatter gather > >flag > > > >External Email > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Verma, Shally [mailto:shally.ve...@cavium.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 9:39 AM > >> To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>; Gupta, > >> Ashish <ashish.gu...@cavium.com>; Trahe, Fiona > >> <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; Daly, Lee <lee.d...@intel.com>; Sahu, Sunila > >> <sunila.s...@cavium.com> > >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org > >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 3/4] compressdev: replace mbuf scatter gather > >> flag > >> > >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: Pablo de Lara [mailto:pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com] > >> >Sent: 04 July 2018 19:41 > >> >To: Verma, Shally <shally.ve...@cavium.com>; Gupta, Ashish > >> ><ashish.gu...@cavium.com>; fiona.tr...@intel.com; lee.d...@intel.com > >> >Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com> > >> >Subject: [PATCH v3 3/4] compressdev: replace mbuf scatter gather > >> >flag > >> > > >> >External Email > >> > > >> >The current mbuf scatter gather feature flag is too ambiguous, as it > >> >is not clear if input and/or output buffers can be scatter gather > >> >mbufs or not. > >> > > >> >Therefore, three new flags will replace this flag: > >> >- RTE_COMP_FF_OOP_SGL_IN_SGL_OUT > >> >- RTE_COMP_FF_OOP_SGL_IN_FB_OUT > >> >- RTE_COMP_FF_OOP_FB_IN_SGL_OUT > >> > > >> [Shally] Believe Out of place is default support on current > >> compression API, so why do we need _OOP_ here? > > > >Hi Shally, > > > >You are right, but I just wanted to clarify that the scenario is for Out of > >place > only. > > > Ok. But that looks redundant to me. Though not likely, tomorrow if some algo > support in-place, Then we will end up adding in_place equivalent of same. So > would prefer to keep naming generic of in/out place and specific to Scatter- > gather in/out support.
I think I am not quite following you. Actually, if in the future we support In-place, then it is important to have OOP in the macro, to specify that SGL is supported for Out-of-place and maybe not in-place (like in cryptodev). Otherwise, we would need to break the API, which can be avoided now. Thanks, Pablo > > >Thanks, > >Pablo > > > >> > >> Thanks > >> Shally > >> >Note that out-of-place flat buffers is supported by default and > >> >in-place is not supported by the library. > >> > > >> >Signed-off-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com> > >> >Acked-by: Fiona Trahe <fiona.tr...@intel.com>
