Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/16] remove mbuf timestamp

2020-11-03 Thread Thomas Monjalon
03/11/2020 18:42, Stephen Hemminger: > On Tue, 03 Nov 2020 17:20:20 +0100 > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 03/11/2020 17:08, Stephen Hemminger: > > > On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 15:09:15 +0100 > > > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > The mbuf field timestamp was announced to be removed for three reasons

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/16] remove mbuf timestamp

2020-11-03 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Tue, 03 Nov 2020 17:20:20 +0100 Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 03/11/2020 17:08, Stephen Hemminger: > > On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 15:09:15 +0100 > > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > The mbuf field timestamp was announced to be removed for three reasons: > > > - a dynamic field already exist, used fo

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/16] remove mbuf timestamp

2020-11-03 Thread Thomas Monjalon
03/11/2020 17:08, Stephen Hemminger: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 15:09:15 +0100 > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > The mbuf field timestamp was announced to be removed for three reasons: > > - a dynamic field already exist, used for Tx only > > - this field always used 8 bytes even if unneeded > > -

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/16] remove mbuf timestamp

2020-11-03 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 15:09:15 +0100 Thomas Monjalon wrote: > The mbuf field timestamp was announced to be removed for three reasons: > - a dynamic field already exist, used for Tx only > - this field always used 8 bytes even if unneeded > - this field is in the first half (cacheline) of mbuf

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/16] remove mbuf timestamp

2020-11-03 Thread Thomas Monjalon
03/11/2020 15:17, Olivier Matz: > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 03:09:15PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > The mbuf field timestamp was announced to be removed for three reasons: > > - a dynamic field already exist, used for Tx only > > - this field always used 8 bytes even if unneeded > > - this

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/16] remove mbuf timestamp

2020-11-03 Thread Olivier Matz
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 03:09:15PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > The mbuf field timestamp was announced to be removed for three reasons: > - a dynamic field already exist, used for Tx only > - this field always used 8 bytes even if unneeded > - this field is in the first half (cacheline) of

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/16] remove mbuf timestamp

2020-11-03 Thread Thomas Monjalon
The mbuf field timestamp was announced to be removed for three reasons: - a dynamic field already exist, used for Tx only - this field always used 8 bytes even if unneeded - this field is in the first half (cacheline) of mbuf After this series, the dynamic field timestamp is used for both Rx