>From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:58 PM
>
>The point is today it's broken, and no application running on top of DPDK
>check these flags because they are set to 0. If we decide to assign a value
>to these flags, it will break the working applicat
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Jay Rolette wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Don Provan wrote:
>
> > >From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> > >Subject: [dpdk-dev] removing mbuf error flags
> > >
> > >My opinion is that
gt;From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com
> <mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com>]
> > >Subject: [dpdk-dev] removing mbuf error flags
> > >
> > >My opinion is that invalid packets should not be given to the
> application
>
>From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
>Subject: [dpdk-dev] removing mbuf error flags
>
>My opinion is that invalid packets should not be given to the application and
>only a statistic counter should be incremented.
The idea of an application that handles
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 5:25 AM
> To: dev at dpdk.org; Zhang, Helin
> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin ; John Daley
> (johndale)
> Subject: removing mbuf error flags
>
> Hi,
>
> In rte_mbuf.h, some rx flags
Hi,
In rte_mbuf.h, some rx flags are set to 0 since a long time since
nearly 2 years. It means nobody use them. They were introduced by
the following commit:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=c22265f6
As far as I understand, these flags were introduced to let the
application know that a r
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Don Provan wrote:
> >From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> >Subject: [dpdk-dev] removing mbuf error flags
> >
> >My opinion is that invalid packets should not be given to the application
> and only a statistic co
7 matches
Mail list logo
