On 23/11/15 14:46, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-11-23 15:17, Thomas Monjalon:
>> Yes, it is a totally new work and it probably needs more time to have a
>> design working well for most of use cases.
>> As I already discussed with Olivier, I think it should be considered as
>> experimental. It
2015-11-23 15:17, Thomas Monjalon:
> Yes, it is a totally new work and it probably needs more time to have a
> design working well for most of use cases.
> As I already discussed with Olivier, I think it should be considered as
> experimental. It means we can try it but do not consider it as a
2015-11-23 14:08, Olivier MATZ:
> 2015-11-23 12:16, Declan Doherty:
> > 2015-11-23 11:52, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> >> I understand that current API is probably not perfect and might need
> >> to be revised in future.
>
> The problem is that it's not easy to change the dpdk API now.
[...]
> > Just
On 23/11/15 13:08, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/23/2015 01:16 PM, Declan Doherty wrote:
>>> I don't think we should start to re-use userdata.
>>> Userdata was intended for the upper layer app to pass/store it's
>>> private data associated with mbuf, and we probably should keep it this
>>>
Hi,
On 11/23/2015 01:16 PM, Declan Doherty wrote:
>> I don't think we should start to re-use userdata.
>> Userdata was intended for the upper layer app to pass/store it's
>> private data associated with mbuf, and we probably should keep it this
>> way.
If the crypto API PMD takes both mbuf and
On 23/11/15 11:52, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> Hi Olivier,
>
>> On 11/20/2015 06:26 PM, Declan Doherty wrote:
The new files are called rte_mbuf_offload, but from what I understand,
it is more like a mbuf metadata api. What you call "offload operation"
is not called because an
Hi Olivier,
> On 11/20/2015 06:26 PM, Declan Doherty wrote:
> >> The new files are called rte_mbuf_offload, but from what I understand,
> >> it is more like a mbuf metadata api. What you call "offload operation"
> >> is not called because an offload is attached, but because you call
> >>
Hi Declan,
On 11/20/2015 06:26 PM, Declan Doherty wrote:
>> The new files are called rte_mbuf_offload, but from what I understand,
>> it is more like a mbuf metadata api. What you call "offload operation"
>> is not called because an offload is attached, but because you call
>>
Hey Oliver, see reply inline.
On 20/11/15 15:27, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> Hi Declan,
>
> Please find some comments below.
>
> On 11/13/2015 07:58 PM, Declan Doherty wrote:
>> This library add support for adding a chain of offload operations to a
>> mbuf. It contains the definition of the
Hi Declan,
Please find some comments below.
On 11/13/2015 07:58 PM, Declan Doherty wrote:
> This library add support for adding a chain of offload operations to a
> mbuf. It contains the definition of the rte_mbuf_offload structure as
> well as helper functions for attaching offloads to mbufs
This library add support for adding a chain of offload operations to a
mbuf. It contains the definition of the rte_mbuf_offload structure as
well as helper functions for attaching offloads to mbufs and a mempool
management functions.
This initial implementation supports attaching multiple
11 matches
Mail list logo
