On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 06:48:30AM +0000, Remy Horton wrote: > > On 17/01/2017 04:29, Jerin Jacob wrote: > [..] > > It is a value added feature for DPDK. But what is the plan for incorporating > > the mbuf change? I have 8 month old mbuf change for ARM for natural > > alignment. If we are accepting any mbuf change then we need to include > > outstanding mbuf changes to avoid future ABI breakage. > > > > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12878/ > > I know there's some discussion going on in the background regarding this. > I've yet to hear a definite answer myself..
This was the last thread on this topic http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-July/043222.html Where Oliver want to group a few of the mbuf changes together. Thats is good. But, looking at the history(holding a ARM specific patch for 8 months), I don't believe, we will get consensus on _all_ the items on mbuf change like ports, m->next etc. I think we had consensus on my change(making mbuf natural aligned), but it was queued for grouping with other mbuf changes. Jerin > > ..Remy
