15/05/2020 12:08, Nithin Dabilpuram: > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:29:31PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > > I don't see any better approach than having a mbuf flag. However, I'm > > still not fully convinced that a dynamic flag won't do the job. Taking > > 3 additional flags (among 18 remaing) for this feature also means that > > we have 3 flags less for dynamic flags for all applications, even for > > applications that will not use this feature. > > > > Would it be a problem to use a dynamic flag in this case? > Since packet marking feature itself is already part of spec, > if we move the flags to PMD specific dynamic flag, then it creates a > confusion. > > It is not the case of a custom feature supported by a specific PMD. > I believe when other PMD's implement packet marking, the same flags will > suffice.
A dynamic flag is not necessarily PMD-specific. It is just avoiding consuming bits if the feature is not used by the application. We must move more existing flags and fields to be dynamic. In general, all new flags and fields in mbuf should be dynamic. And a work must be done to move existing stuff to free more space for more dynamic features.
