19/11/2019 17:25, Stephen Hemminger:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:23:50 +0000
> Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>
> > Tuesday, November 19, 2019 11:33 AM, Thomas Monjalon:
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure
> > >
> > > 18/11/2019 11:02, Shahaf Shuler:
> > > > struct rte_pktmbuf_pool_private {
> > > > uint16_t mbuf_data_room_size; /**< Size of data space in each
> > > mbuf. */
> > > > uint16_t mbuf_priv_size; /**< Size of private area in each
> > > > mbuf.
> > > */
> > > > + uint32_t reserved; /**< reserved for future use. */
> > >
> > > Maybe simpler to give the future name "flags" and keep the comment
> > > "reserved for future use".
> >
> > I'm am OK w/ changing to flags.
> > If Olivier accepts maybe you can change while applying?
>
> After the Linux openat experience if you want to add flags.
> Then all usage of API needs to validate that flags is 0.
Sorry Stephen, I don't understand what you mean.
Please could you explain?
