On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
wrote:
>
>> > I'll send an API and validation test updates (for option 1)) with simple
>> copy style implementation.
>>
>> It's not clear why we need a copy style implementation given that we
>> have a zero-copy implementation.
> > I'll send an API and validation test updates (for option 1)) with simple
> copy style implementation.
>
> It's not clear why we need a copy style implementation given that we
> have a zero-copy implementation. While it's good to discuss this as an
> option in the ODP implementation guide, as
oo) > labs.com>
>> Cc: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
>> Subject: Re: [lng-odp] Packet references API
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I still think that packet ref API should be de
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Fischofer [mailto:bill.fischo...@linaro.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 12:46 AM
> To: Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) labs.com>
> Cc: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
> Subject: Re: [lng-odp] Packet references API
>
>
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I still think that packet ref API should be defined so that an implementation
> may fall back to doing packet copy instead of reference to shared data (if it
> simply cannot handle packets by reference). Now af
On 9 February 2017 at 21:02, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I still think that packet ref API should be defined so that an implementation
> may fall back to doing packet copy instead of reference to shared data (if it
> simply cannot handle packets by reference). Now after
Hi,
I still think that packet ref API should be defined so that an implementation
may fall back to doing packet copy instead of reference to shared data (if it
simply cannot handle packets by reference). Now after implementing packet ref
API as copy (in about 90 lines), only issues are with tes
