t; To: Stephen Hemminger
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:49:17AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 11:29:07 +020
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 05:54:57PM +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> On 10.07.2019 12:29, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > Many features require to store data inside the mbuf. As the room in mbuf
> > structure is limited, it is not possible to have a field for each
> > feature. Also, changing fields in the m
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:23:19PM +, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev On Behalf Of Olivier Matz
> > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 1:07 PM
> > To: Stephen Hemminger
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [d
On 10.07.2019 12:29, Olivier Matz wrote:
Many features require to store data inside the mbuf. As the room in mbuf
structure is limited, it is not possible to have a field for each
feature. Also, changing fields in the mbuf structure can break the API
or ABI.
This commit addresses these issues, b
> -Original Message-
> From: dev On Behalf Of Olivier Matz
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 1:07 PM
> To: Stephen Hemminger
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:49:17AM -0700,
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 08:31:19AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:26:19 +0200
> Olivier Matz wrote:
>
> > For generic fields, I think they should be declared in this file. For
> > instance, if we decide to replace the current m->timestamp field by a
> > dynamic field, we
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 02:37:23PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 2019, at 2:53 AM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> >
> > Hi Keith,
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 06:12:16PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jul 10, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Stephen Hemminger
> >>> wrote:
>
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:26:19 +0200
Olivier Matz wrote:
> For generic fields, I think they should be declared in this file. For
> instance, if we decide to replace the current m->timestamp field by a
> dynamic field, we should add like this:
>
> #define RTE_MBUF_DYN_TIMESTAMP_ID "rte_timestamp"
>
> On Jul 11, 2019, at 2:53 AM, Olivier Matz wrote:
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 06:12:16PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Stephen Hemminger
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 11:29:07 +0200
>>> Olivier Matz wrote:
>>>
/**
*
10/07/2019 11:29, Olivier Matz:
> Many features require to store data inside the mbuf. As the room in mbuf
> structure is limited, it is not possible to have a field for each
> feature. Also, changing fields in the mbuf structure can break the API
> or ABI.
>
> This commit addresses these issues,
> -Original Message-
> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.m...@6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 16:21
> To: Wang, Haiyue
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 08:04:00AM +
ssage-
> > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Matz
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 17:29
> > > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags
> > > >
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.m...@6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 15:26
> To: Wang, Haiyue
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at
Hi Keith,
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 06:12:16PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Stephen Hemminger
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 11:29:07 +0200
> > Olivier Matz wrote:
> >
> >> /**
> >> * Indicate that the metadata field in the mbuf is in use.
> >> @@
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:49:17AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 11:29:07 +0200
> Olivier Matz wrote:
>
> > /**
> > * Indicate that the metadata field in the mbuf is in use.
> > @@ -738,6 +741,8 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
> > */
> > struct rte_mbuf_ext_shared_info *s
019 17:29
> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags
> >
> > Many features require to store data inside the mbuf. As the room in mbuf
> > structure is limited, it is not possible to have a field for each
> > feature. Also,
> On Jul 10, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Stephen Hemminger
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 11:29:07 +0200
> Olivier Matz wrote:
>
>> /**
>> * Indicate that the metadata field in the mbuf is in use.
>> @@ -738,6 +741,8 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
>> */
>> struct rte_mbuf_ext_shared_info *shinfo
On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 11:29:07 +0200
Olivier Matz wrote:
> /**
> * Indicate that the metadata field in the mbuf is in use.
> @@ -738,6 +741,8 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
>*/
> struct rte_mbuf_ext_shared_info *shinfo;
>
> + uint64_t dynfield1; /**< Reserved for dynamic fields. */
> +
Hi,
Sounds cool, just have some questions inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Matz
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 17:29
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags
>
Many features require to store data inside the mbuf. As the room in mbuf
structure is limited, it is not possible to have a field for each
feature. Also, changing fields in the mbuf structure can break the API
or ABI.
This commit addresses these issues, by enabling the dynamic registration
of fiel
20 matches
Mail list logo
