Great, thanks for the quick response!! -Paul
From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 2:30 AM To: Luse, Paul E <paul.e.l...@intel.com> Cc: dev@dpdk.org <dev@dpdk.org>, olivier.m...@6wind.com <olivier.m...@6wind.com> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Question about recent change to rte_mbuf struct - user data and udata64 feels (breaks SPDK) Hi, 19/11/2020 01:17, Luse, Paul E: > Hi, > > Recently this patch > https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/commit/5284adad3e95025f9901869f581c8c04ea642d32 > made the following change: > > * mbuf: Removed the unioned fields ``userdata`` and ``udata64`` > from the structure ``rte_mbuf``. It is replaced with dynamic fields. > > Which breaks the SPDK project’s crypto and compression capabilities as we use > userdata to store context for our operation so it can be retrieved upcon > completion of the operation. It’s not clear to me that we are safe to use > the fields that were added: > > uint64_t dynfield1[2]; /**< Reserved for dynamic fields. */ > uint64_t dynfield1[3]; /**< Reserved for dynamic fields. */ > > based on the comments. Can someone please advise, why was this done and can > we use these fields? We are doing some API changes in DPDK 20.11. The mbuf changes were explained one year ago: http://fast.dpdk.org/events/slides/DPDK-2019-09-Dynamic_mbuf.pdf The API for dynamic fields is available since DPDK 19.11: http://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/mbuf_lib.html#dynamic-fields-and-flags If you want an example, look how it is used in example apps.
