Re: [dpdk-users] KNI - mbuf-sk_buff converstion

2016-12-21 Thread tom . barbette 
The memory space could be mapped when converting an mbuf to skbuff (while as 
you say it would be much harder the other way), but I don't see it done in the 
KNI code.

It memcpy the whole packet.

Out of curiosity, are there plan on using mapped skbuff?

Tom Barbette 
PhD Student @ Université de Liège 

Office 1/13 
Bâtiment B37 
Quartier Polytech 
Allée de la découverte, 12 
4000 Liège 

04/366 91 75 
0479/60 94 63 


- Mail original -
De: "Anupam Kapoor" 
À: "Avi Cohen" 
Cc: users@dpdk.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 21 Décembre 2016 09:28:46
Objet: Re: [dpdk-users] KNI - mbuf-sk_buff converstion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Avi Cohen  wrote:

> are zero_copy with respect  to the packet data (headers+payload) - is this
> correc


​umm mbuf's, and skb's are in different address spaces...

--
kind regards
anupam​


In the beginning was the lambda, and the lambda was with Emacs, and Emacs
was the lambda.

Re: [dpdk-users] KNI - mbuf-sk_buff converstion

2016-12-21 Thread Anupam Kapoor 
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Avi Cohen  wrote:

> are zero_copy with respect  to the packet data (headers+payload) - is this
> correc


​umm mbuf's, and skb's are in different address spaces...

--
kind regards
anupam​


In the beginning was the lambda, and the lambda was with Emacs, and Emacs
was the lambda.

[dpdk-users] KNI - mbuf-sk_buff converstion

2016-12-20 Thread Avi Cohen 
Hello,
I guess  these conversions mbuff to sk_buff (executed in the KNI kthread 
context  )  - are zero_copy with respect  to the packet data (headers+payload) 
- is this correct ?
Thanks avi