On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 08:11:07 +0000
Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > Thanks for commenting. See response inline.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Nitin
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 7:45 PM Stephen Hemminger
> > <step...@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 09:50:46 +0530
> > > Nitin Saxena <nsax...@marvell.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +int rte_node_mbuf_dynfield_register(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct node_mbuf_dynfield_mz *f = NULL;
> > > > + const struct rte_memzone *mz = NULL;
> > > > + int dyn_offset;
> > > > +
> > > > + RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(rte_node_mbuf_dynfield_t) <
> > RTE_NODE_MBUF_DYNFIELD_SIZE);
> > > > + RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(rte_node_mbuf_overload_fields_t) <
> > > > + RTE_NODE_MBUF_OVERLOADABLE_FIELDS_SIZE);
> > > > +
> > > > + mz =
> > rte_memzone_lookup(NODE_MBUF_DYNFIELD_MEMZONE_NAME);
> > >
> > > Seems wasteful to have a whole memzone for this, the data is small.
> > > Is there a reason it could not just be a global variable like timestamp.
> > >
> > Replaced usage of memzone with global variable in v2
>
> We need to use memzone to share the offset between primary and secondary
> processes I don’t see any other way.
Normally secondary just uses dynamic field lookup to find the offset.
