[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/12] mbuf: enhancements of mbuf clones

2015-04-20 Thread Olivier MATZ
Hi Neil, On 04/20/2015 07:21 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 07:07:31PM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote: >> Hi Neil, >> >> On 04/20/2015 06:53 PM, Neil Horman wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:41:24PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: The first objective of this series is to fix the s

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/12] mbuf: enhancements of mbuf clones

2015-04-20 Thread Olivier MATZ
Hi Neil, On 04/20/2015 06:53 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:41:24PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: >> The first objective of this series is to fix the support of indirect >> mbufs when the application reserves a private area in mbufs. It also >> removes the limitation that rte_pkt

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/12] mbuf: enhancements of mbuf clones

2015-04-20 Thread Olivier Matz
The first objective of this series is to fix the support of indirect mbufs when the application reserves a private area in mbufs. It also removes the limitation that rte_pktmbuf_clone() is only allowed on direct (non-cloned) mbufs. The series also contains some enhancements and fixes in the mbuf ar

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/12] mbuf: enhancements of mbuf clones

2015-04-20 Thread Neil Horman
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 07:07:31PM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote: > Hi Neil, > > On 04/20/2015 06:53 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:41:24PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > >> The first objective of this series is to fix the support of indirect > >> mbufs when the application reserv

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/12] mbuf: enhancements of mbuf clones

2015-04-20 Thread Neil Horman
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:41:24PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > The first objective of this series is to fix the support of indirect > mbufs when the application reserves a private area in mbufs. It also > removes the limitation that rte_pktmbuf_clone() is only allowed on > direct (non-cloned) mbuf