Hi Bruce, On 08/28/2014 05:42 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.com> > > The initial role of rte_ctrlmbuf is to carry generic messages (data > pointer + data length) but it's not used by the DPDK or it applications. > Keeping it implies: > - loosing 1 byte in the rte_mbuf structure > - having some dead code rte_mbuf.[ch] > > This patch removes this feature. Thanks to it, it is now possible to > simplify the rte_mbuf structure by merging the rte_pktmbuf structure > in it. This is done in next commit. > > Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.com> > > * Updated patch to HEAD. > * Modified patch to retain the old function names for ctrl mbufs as > macros. This helps with app compatibility, and allows the concept > of a control mbuf to be reintroduced via a single-bit flag in > a future change. > * Updated the packet framework ip_pipeline example application to > work following this change. > > Changes in v2: > * Fixed whitespace errors introduced by this patch flagged by checkpatch > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com>
To be honest, I'm not convinced that keeping the old function names is really required, but I suppose you had good reasons to reintroduce them. Just for information, is it for compatibility purpose or is there a real wish to reintroduce a sort of control mbuf in the future ? Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.com>
