> > 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