: dev@openvswitch.org
>> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] dpdk: Ditch MAX_PKT_BURST macro.
>>
>> This version of the patch breaks sparse, I sent out another.
>>
>> Ethan
>
> The change makes sense - I tested this version on various dpdk interfaces and
> as expec
: dev@openvswitch.org
>> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] dpdk: Ditch MAX_PKT_BURST macro.
>>
>> This version of the patch breaks sparse, I sent out another.
>>
>> Ethan
>
> The change makes sense - I tested this version on various dpdk interfaces and
> as expec
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Ethan Jackson
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 5:08 PM
> To: dev@openvswitch.org
> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] dpdk: Ditch MAX_PKT_BURST macro.
>
> This version of the patch brea
Thanks for taking care of this!
There are some "NETDEV_MAX_RX_BATCH" left in dpif-netdev.c
(inside some #else blocks).
Changing those:
Acked-by: Daniele Di Proietto
On 16/05/2015 16:24, "Ethan Jackson" wrote:
>The MAX_PKT_BURST and NETDEV_MAX_RX_BATCH macros had a confusing
>relationship. T
This version of the patch breaks sparse, I sent out another.
Ethan
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> The MAX_PKT_BURST and NETDEV_MAX_RX_BATCH macros had a confusing
> relationship. They basically purport to do the same thing, making it
> unclear which is the source of tr
The MAX_PKT_BURST and NETDEV_MAX_RX_BATCH macros had a confusing
relationship. They basically purport to do the same thing, making it
unclear which is the source of truth.
Furthermore, while NETDEV_MAX_RX_BATCH was 256, MAX_PKT_BURST was 32,
meaning we never process a batch larger than 32 packets
