On 25/07/2019 03:22, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 05:10:35 +, Kevin Laatz wrote:
Currently, addresses are chunk size aligned. This means, we are very
restricted in terms of where we can place chunk within the umem. For
example, if we have a chunk size of 2k, then our chunks can
On 25/07/2019 10:27, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
On 2019-07-24 08:10, Kevin Laatz wrote:
Currently, addresses are chunk size aligned. This means, we are very
restricted in terms of where we can place chunk within the umem. For
example, if we have a chunk size of 2k, then our chunks can only be p
len)
metalen = xdp->data - xdp->data_meta;
}
- to_buf = xdp_umem_get_data(xs->umem, addr);
- memcpy(to_buf, from_buf, len + metalen);
- addr += metalen;
+ __xsk_rcv_memcpy(xs->umem, addr + offset, from_buf, len, metalen);
+
+ offset += metale
On 2019-07-24 08:10, Kevin Laatz wrote:
> Currently, addresses are chunk size aligned. This means, we are very
> restricted in terms of where we can place chunk within the umem. For
> example, if we have a chunk size of 2k, then our chunks can only be placed
> at 0,2k,4k,6k,8k... and so on (ie. eve
On 2019-07-24 08:10, Kevin Laatz wrote:
> Currently, addresses are chunk size aligned. This means, we are very
> restricted in terms of where we can place chunk within the umem. For
> example, if we have a chunk size of 2k, then our chunks can only be placed
> at 0,2k,4k,6k,8k... and so on (ie. eve
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 05:10:35 +, Kevin Laatz wrote:
> Currently, addresses are chunk size aligned. This means, we are very
> restricted in terms of where we can place chunk within the umem. For
> example, if we have a chunk size of 2k, then our chunks can only be placed
> at 0,2k,4k,6k,8k... and
