On 8/26/22 14:14, David Marchand wrote:
> Hi Ilya,
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 3:06 PM Ilya Maximets wrote:
>>
>> On 3/18/22 16:33, David Marchand wrote:
>>> DPDK based dp-packets points to data buffers that can't be expanded
>>> dynamically.
>>> Their layout is as follows:
>>> - a 128 bytes head
Hi Ilya,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 3:06 PM Ilya Maximets wrote:
>
> On 3/18/22 16:33, David Marchand wrote:
> > DPDK based dp-packets points to data buffers that can't be expanded
> > dynamically.
> > Their layout is as follows:
> > - a 128 bytes headroom chosen at DPDK build time (RTE_PKTMBUF_HEAD
On 3/18/22 16:33, David Marchand wrote:
> DPDK based dp-packets points to data buffers that can't be expanded
> dynamically.
> Their layout is as follows:
> - a 128 bytes headroom chosen at DPDK build time (RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM),
> - a maximum size chosen at mempool creation,
>
> In some usecases
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 3:41 AM Harold Huang wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 11:33 PM David Marchand
> wrote:
> >
> > DPDK based dp-packets points to data buffers that can't be expanded
> > dynamically.
> > Their layout is as follows:
> > - a 128 bytes headroom chosen at DPDK build time (RTE_P
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 6:54 AM Peng He wrote:
>
> Hi,
> do you have future plan to support mbuf chaining for dp-packet?
> as I see you've actually relax some check on dp-packet in this
> patch.
To me, mbuf chaining means chaining packets, like having a list of packets.
So I guess you mean "multi
Hi, Peng,
Patch[1] is an example in OVS-DPDK to support muti-segments mbufs.
It was not applied to OVS upstream finally. Maybe muti-segments mbuf
feature is not accepted by the community although we need this feature
when we want to use some virtual PMD drivers such as vhost-user,
virtio-user t
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 11:33 PM David Marchand
wrote:
>
> DPDK based dp-packets points to data buffers that can't be expanded
> dynamically.
> Their layout is as follows:
> - a 128 bytes headroom chosen at DPDK build time (RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM),
> - a maximum size chosen at mempool creation,
>
>
Hi,
do you have future plan to support mbuf chaining for dp-packet?
as I see you've actually relax some check on dp-packet in this
patch.
thanks
David Marchand 于2022年3月18日周五 23:34写道：
> DPDK based dp-packets points to data buffers that can't be expanded
> dynamically.
> Their layout is as follow
DPDK based dp-packets points to data buffers that can't be expanded
dynamically.
Their layout is as follows:
- a 128 bytes headroom chosen at DPDK build time (RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM),
- a maximum size chosen at mempool creation,
In some usecases though (like encapsulating with multiple tunnels),
a 1
