> > On 8/22/2019 9:18 AM, Jakub Grajciar wrote:
> > > Zero-copy slave support for memif PMD.
> > > Slave interface exposes DPDK memory to master interface. Only single
> > > file segments are supported (EAL option --single-file-segments).
>
> Do you really want this additional configuration in your driver or can't you
> enable/disable the functional
Performance with multi file segments is worse than non-zero copy, so
there is no reason to implement.
> > > +/**
> > > + * @warning
> > > + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this API may change without prior notice
> > > + *
> > > + * Get the single_file_segments parameter value from memory
> configuration.
>
> I would prefer you describe what this actually means.
> We don't really care about the value itself.
Ack.
>
>
> > > + */
> > > +__rte_experimental
> > > +uint32_t
>
> And a boolean is enough, this is a flag.
Ack.
>
>
> > > +rte_mcfg_get_single_file_segments(void);
> > > +
> > > #ifdef __cplusplus
> > > }
> > > #endif
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
> > > b/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
> > > index 7cbf82d37..c2b9d473f 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
> > > @@ -418,5 +418,6 @@ EXPERIMENTAL {
> > > rte_lcore_to_cpu_id;
> > > rte_mcfg_timer_lock;
> > > rte_mcfg_timer_unlock;
> > > + rte_mcfg_get_single_file_segments;
> >
> > This should be moved to 19.11 block in experimental
>
> +1
Ack.
>
>
> > cc'ed Dave for eal part,
> > @Dave, change looks straight forward but can you please check/comment?
>
> I don't like the name of this API, since it gives the impression it returns
> "segments"..
> But on the other hand, this is aligned with the mcfg field: people touching
> the
> internals have more chances to see there is an exported API.
Do you have any suggestions? How about
rte_mcfg_get_single_file_segments_parameter()?
>
> Cc: Anatoly (but I think he is off for this week).
>
> Other than that I am ok with this change.
>
>
> --
> David Marchand
