t; To: Stephen Hemminger
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:49:17AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 11:29:07 +020
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 05:54:57PM +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> On 10.07.2019 12:29, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > Many features require to store data inside the mbuf. As the room in mbuf
> > structure is limited, it is not possible to have a field for each
> > feature. Also, changing fields in the m
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:23:19PM +, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev On Behalf Of Olivier Matz
> > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 1:07 PM
> > To: Stephen Hemminger
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [d
On 10.07.2019 12:29, Olivier Matz wrote:
Many features require to store data inside the mbuf. As the room in mbuf
structure is limited, it is not possible to have a field for each
feature. Also, changing fields in the mbuf structure can break the API
or ABI.
This commit addresses these issues, b
> -Original Message-
> From: dev On Behalf Of Olivier Matz
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 1:07 PM
> To: Stephen Hemminger
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:49:17AM -0700,
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 08:31:19AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:26:19 +0200
> Olivier Matz wrote:
>
> > For generic fields, I think they should be declared in this file. For
> > instance, if we decide to replace the current m->timestamp field by a
> > dynamic field, we
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 02:37:23PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 2019, at 2:53 AM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> >
> > Hi Keith,
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 06:12:16PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jul 10, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Stephen Hemminger
> >>> wrote:
>
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:26:19 +0200
Olivier Matz wrote:
> For generic fields, I think they should be declared in this file. For
> instance, if we decide to replace the current m->timestamp field by a
> dynamic field, we should add like this:
>
> #define RTE_MBUF_DYN_TIMESTAMP_ID "rte_timestamp"
>
> On Jul 11, 2019, at 2:53 AM, Olivier Matz wrote:
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 06:12:16PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Stephen Hemminger
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 11:29:07 +0200
>>> Olivier Matz wrote:
>>>
/**
*
10/07/2019 11:29, Olivier Matz:
> Many features require to store data inside the mbuf. As the room in mbuf
> structure is limited, it is not possible to have a field for each
> feature. Also, changing fields in the mbuf structure can break the API
> or ABI.
>
> This commit addresses these issues,
> -Original Message-
> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.m...@6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 16:21
> To: Wang, Haiyue
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 08:04:00AM +
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 08:04:00AM +, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.m...@6wind.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 15:26
> > To: Wang, Haiyue
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [R
> -Original Message-
> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.m...@6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 15:26
> To: Wang, Haiyue
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at
Hi Keith,
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 06:12:16PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Stephen Hemminger
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 11:29:07 +0200
> > Olivier Matz wrote:
> >
> >> /**
> >> * Indicate that the metadata field in the mbuf is in use.
> >> @@
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:49:17AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 11:29:07 +0200
> Olivier Matz wrote:
>
> > /**
> > * Indicate that the metadata field in the mbuf is in use.
> > @@ -738,6 +741,8 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
> > */
> > struct rte_mbuf_ext_shared_info *s
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 05:14:33PM +, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sounds cool, just have some questions inline.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Matz
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 17:29
> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subje
> On Jul 10, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Stephen Hemminger
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 11:29:07 +0200
> Olivier Matz wrote:
>
>> /**
>> * Indicate that the metadata field in the mbuf is in use.
>> @@ -738,6 +741,8 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
>> */
>> struct rte_mbuf_ext_shared_info *shinfo
On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 11:29:07 +0200
Olivier Matz wrote:
> /**
> * Indicate that the metadata field in the mbuf is in use.
> @@ -738,6 +741,8 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
>*/
> struct rte_mbuf_ext_shared_info *shinfo;
>
> + uint64_t dynfield1; /**< Reserved for dynamic fields. */
> +
Hi,
Sounds cool, just have some questions inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Matz
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 17:29
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags
>
> Many features requir
19 matches
Mail list logo
