From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Zhe Tao <zhe.tao@intel.com>
Subject: i40e & ixgbe xmit issue: txe->next_id
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 03:17:48 +0800
Message-ID: <20160303191032.GA9550@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To: dev@dpdk.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8875B2BE1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  4 Mar 2016 04:31:51 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
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>

Hi all,
I have a question about why we need the txe->next_id field in the i40e&ixgbe Tx
function?
>>From the current implementation, all the txe is initialized and free sequentially,
so we don't need this "next_id" field in our TX function, and when we decide the
"last_id" for txe, we assume the txe is sequential. So I suggest deprecate using
this next_id field.
Any comments will be welcome!