From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] mbuf: move packet type definitions
	in a new file
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1648264.CA3faU4kLD@xps13>
References: <1472481335-21226-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
 <2178965.8ItUXrjgAs@xps13> <57FCAA7A.6020201@6wind.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, cunming.liang@intel.com, john.mcnamara@intel.com,
 andrey.chilikin@intel.com, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-lf0-f46.google.com (mail-lf0-f46.google.com
 [209.85.215.46]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C6596CB5
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 17:51:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-lf0-f46.google.com with SMTP id x79so48884994lff.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <57FCAA7A.6020201@6wind.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-10-11 11:01, Olivier MATZ:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On 10/10/2016 04:52 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-10-03 10:38, Olivier Matz:
> >> The file rte_mbuf.h starts to be quite big, and next commits
> >> will introduce more functions related to packet types. Let's
> >> move them in a new file.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> >> ---
> >>   lib/librte_mbuf/Makefile         |   2 +-
> >>   lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h       | 495 +----------------------------------
> >>   lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_ptype.h | 552 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Why not moving packet type and other packet flags in librte_net?
> 
> These are mbuf features.

Yes there is some space reserved in the mbuf for these bits.

> I can reverse the question: why moving them in librte_net? :)

Fair enough :)
I was thinking to group protocol-related definitions in librte_net.
But both approaches are acceptable.

OK to keep the packet types in mbuf lib.