27/10/2020 11:05, Olivier Matz:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 11:20:03PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > The device-specific metadata was stored in the deprecated field udata64.
> > It is moved to a dynamic mbuf field in order to allow removal of udata64.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon
> <.
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Monjalon
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 16:52
> To: Wang, Haiyue
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh ;
> david.march...@redhat.com; Richardson, Bruce
> ; olivier.m...@6wind.com;
> andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru;
> akhil.go...@nxp.com; Doherty, Declan
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 11:20:03PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> The device-specific metadata was stored in the deprecated field udata64.
> It is moved to a dynamic mbuf field in order to allow removal of udata64.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon
> ---
> doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_security.rs
27/10/2020 03:01, Wang, Haiyue:
> From: Thomas Monjalon
> For ixgbe PMD,
>
> Acked-by: Haiyue Wang
>
> But I feel that 'rte_security_dynfield' name is too generic, can it be
> more specific about what the field is used for ?
>
> Like below ;-)
>
> #define RTE_SECURITY_DEV_METADATA(m) \
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Monjalon
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 06:20
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Yigit, Ferruh ; david.march...@redhat.com;
> Richardson, Bruce
> ; olivier.m...@6wind.com;
> andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru;
> akhil.go...@nxp.com; Doherty, Declan ; Ankur
> Dwiv
5 matches
Mail list logo
