Snipped > > Does the API need to be prepared for L4 cache? > https://www.anandtech.com/show/16924/did-ibm-just-preview-the-future-of-caches Thank you for the pointer, yes initial patch was considering L4 cache too. But I was not able to get hold of system or get someone to test this with L4. Hence removed the L4 instance from dpdk_topology structure.
We can introduce into v4. Can we get someone from IBM to confirm the same? > > And - just a thought: > Since this library and the Cache Stashing (PCIe TLP) library are somewhat > related, > would it be beneficial to combine them into one patch series, primarily to > make their > APIs more uniform? There was initial zoom invite for understanding and usage, we expected a follow up on the same to close the loop. Based on my current understanding, the API to be used as hints to PMD should be passing `lcore id` only. Hence these can be independent.
