[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback

2015-03-30 Thread Thomas Monjalon
2015-03-23 12:00, Neil Horman: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 04:16:36PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > I think John is saying that the API of rte_eth_rx_burst() already includes > > the nb_pkts parameter. So it's natural to push it to the callback. > > I also think Neil is saying that this parameter

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback

2015-03-23 Thread Thomas Monjalon
2015-03-13 19:15, Neil Horman: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 06:28:31PM +, Mcnamara, John wrote: > > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com] > > > > > > > Is encoding the information in the array really a better solution here? > > > The cb->param already exists for passing in user defi

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback

2015-03-23 Thread Bruce Richardson
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 04:16:36PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-03-13 19:15, Neil Horman: > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 06:28:31PM +, Mcnamara, John wrote: > > > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com] > > > > > > > > > Is encoding the information in the array really a better

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback

2015-03-23 Thread Neil Horman
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 04:16:36PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-03-13 19:15, Neil Horman: > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 06:28:31PM +, Mcnamara, John wrote: > > > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com] > > > > > > > > > Is encoding the information in the array really a better

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback

2015-03-13 Thread Neil Horman
g > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX > > callback > > > > > Is encoding the information in the array really a better solution here? > > The cb->param already exists for passing in user defined information to > > the call

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback

2015-03-13 Thread Mcnamara, John
> -Original Message- > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com] > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 5:32 PM > To: Mcnamara, John > Cc: Richardson, Bruce; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX > callback &

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback

2015-03-13 Thread Mcnamara, John
> -Original Message- > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com] > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 3:09 PM > To: Richardson, Bruce > Cc: Mcnamara, John; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX > callback > &g

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback

2015-03-13 Thread Bruce Richardson
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 09:45:14AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 09:41:33AM +, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 03:15:40PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 04:54:27PM +, John McNamara wrote: > > > > > > > > This patch is a min

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback

2015-03-13 Thread Neil Horman
g > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX > > callback > > > > Plese set asside the ABI issue for a moment. I get that you're trying to > > get it in prior to needing to version it. Thats not the argument. The > > argu

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback

2015-03-13 Thread Neil Horman
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 02:50:03PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 09:45:14AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 09:41:33AM +, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 03:15:40PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 0

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback

2015-03-13 Thread Neil Horman
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 09:41:33AM +, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 03:15:40PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 04:54:27PM +, John McNamara wrote: > > > > > > This patch is a minor extension to the recent patchset for RX/TX callbacks > > > based on

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback

2015-03-13 Thread Bruce Richardson
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 03:15:40PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 04:54:27PM +, John McNamara wrote: > > > > This patch is a minor extension to the recent patchset for RX/TX callbacks > > based on feedback from users implementing solutions based on it. > > > > The patch a

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback

2015-03-12 Thread Mcnamara, John
> -Original Message- > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:16 PM > To: Mcnamara, John > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX > callback > > > Well, w

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback

2015-03-12 Thread John McNamara
This patch is a minor extension to the recent patchset for RX/TX callbacks based on feedback from users implementing solutions based on it. The patch adds a new parameter to the RX callback to pass in the number of available RX packets in addition to the number of dequeued packets. This provides

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback

2015-03-12 Thread Neil Horman
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 04:54:27PM +, John McNamara wrote: > > This patch is a minor extension to the recent patchset for RX/TX callbacks > based on feedback from users implementing solutions based on it. > > The patch adds a new parameter to the RX callback to pass in the number of > availab