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
> I would prefer this was a clone of timestamp code, and put in
> rte_mbuf_dynfield.c
rte_node_mbuf_dynfield_register() is local to graph based rte_nodes
and it is not targeted to be used by non-graph based applications
Do you still think we should move this API definition to rte_mbuf_dyn.c?
