> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Verma, Shally
> Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 9:53 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: [dpdk-dev] [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: 06 July 2018 14:10
> >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
> >
>
> //snip
>
> >> 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.
>
> Ok. LB looks fine. hopefully, that will make apparent to reader, that it's
> opposite
> of Scatter-Gather.
I can clarify a bit more in the comments.
Thanks,
Pablo
>
> Thanks
> Shally
>
> >
> >Pablo
