2015-06-17 13:55, Damjan Marion: > > > On 15 Jun 2015, at 16:12, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com> > > wrote: > > > > The next pointers always start out as NULL when the mbuf pool is created. > > The > > only time it is set to non-NULL is when we have chained mbufs. If we never > > have > > any chained mbufs, we never need to touch the next field, or even read it - > > since > > we have the num-segments count in the first cache line. If we do have a > > multi-segment > > mbuf, it's likely to be a big packet, so we have more processing time > > available > > and we can then take the hit of setting the next pointer. > > There are applications which are not using rx offload, but they deal with > chained mbufs. > Why they are less important than ones using rx offload? This is something > people > should be able to configure on build time. > That should not be too hard to achieve with set of macros. I can come up with > the patch...
Having a build-time configuration of mbuf totally breaks the idea of having some shared libraries.
