On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 18:28:03 +
Akhil Goyal wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 17:28:26 +
> > Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >
> > > On 2/7/2022 5:23 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 03:43:33 +0530
> > > > Akhil Goyal wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> +/**
> > > >> + * @internal
> >
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 17:28:26 +
> Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>
> > On 2/7/2022 5:23 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 03:43:33 +0530
> > > Akhil Goyal wrote:
> > >
> > >> +/**
> > >> + * @internal
> > >> + * Register mbuf dynamic field and flag for IP reassembly incomplete
> cas
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 17:28:26 +
Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/7/2022 5:23 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 03:43:33 +0530
> > Akhil Goyal wrote:
> >
> >> +/**
> >> + * @internal
> >> + * Register mbuf dynamic field and flag for IP reassembly incomplete case.
> >> + */
> >> +
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 03:43:33 +0530
> Akhil Goyal wrote:
>
> > +/**
> > + * @internal
> > + * Register mbuf dynamic field and flag for IP reassembly incomplete case.
> > + */
> > +__rte_internal
> > +int
> > +rte_eth_ip_reass_dynfield_register(int *field_offset, int *flag);
>
> Maybe use RTE_INI
On 2/7/2022 5:23 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 03:43:33 +0530
Akhil Goyal wrote:
+/**
+ * @internal
+ * Register mbuf dynamic field and flag for IP reassembly incomplete case.
+ */
+__rte_internal
+int
+rte_eth_ip_reass_dynfield_register(int *field_offset, int *flag);
Maybe
On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 03:43:33 +0530
Akhil Goyal wrote:
> +/**
> + * @internal
> + * Register mbuf dynamic field and flag for IP reassembly incomplete case.
> + */
> +__rte_internal
> +int
> +rte_eth_ip_reass_dynfield_register(int *field_offset, int *flag);
Maybe use RTE_INIT() constructor for this
s.ru; rosen...@intel.com;
> david.march...@redhat.com; radu.nico...@intel.com; Jerin Jacob
> Kollanukkaran ; step...@networkplumber.org;
> m...@ashroe.eu
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] ethdev: add mbuf dynfield for
> incomplete IP reassembly
>
> On 2/7/2022 4:20 PM
On 2/7/2022 4:20 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
On 2/7/2022 2:20 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
On 2/4/2022 10:13 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
Hardware IP reassembly may be incomplete for multiple reasons like
reassembly timeout reached, duplicate fragments, etc.
To save application cycles to process these packets a
> On 2/7/2022 2:20 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
> >> On 2/4/2022 10:13 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
> >>> Hardware IP reassembly may be incomplete for multiple reasons like
> >>> reassembly timeout reached, duplicate fragments, etc.
> >>> To save application cycles to process these packets again, a new
> >>> m
On 2/7/2022 2:20 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
On 2/4/2022 10:13 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
Hardware IP reassembly may be incomplete for multiple reasons like
reassembly timeout reached, duplicate fragments, etc.
To save application cycles to process these packets again, a new
mbuf dynflag is added to show
> On 2/4/2022 10:13 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
> > Hardware IP reassembly may be incomplete for multiple reasons like
> > reassembly timeout reached, duplicate fragments, etc.
> > To save application cycles to process these packets again, a new
> > mbuf dynflag is added to show that the mbuf received i
On 2/4/2022 10:13 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
Hardware IP reassembly may be incomplete for multiple reasons like
reassembly timeout reached, duplicate fragments, etc.
To save application cycles to process these packets again, a new
mbuf dynflag is added to show that the mbuf received is not
reassemble
12 matches
Mail list logo
