> -----Original Message-----
> From: Verma, Shally [mailto:shally.ve...@cavium.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 12:59 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 16:56
> >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 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.
>
> Ohh okay, now I get it. So these feature flags intend to show input/output
> mode
> supported specifically for in/out of place operations. But then still I see
> having
> OOP isn't required as compression default support is out-of-place and it's
> just
> making feature name too big. Having in-place is exception and if supported,
> can
> use convention RTE_COMP_FF_INPLACE_xx
I would still prefer having OOP, to be consistent with cryptodev. It is also
not that long, it is just 3 letters.
>
> Above one comment, as I see it, use of FB in
> RTE_COMP_FF_OOP_FB_IN_SGL_OUT didn't give clear indication what it mean.
> May be replace it by RTE_COMP_FF_OOP_DIRECT/LINEAR_IN_SGL_OUT
Linear could be a good option, but it is missing a noun there. What about LB
(linear buffer), so we keep it short too.
Pablo
