Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

19/11/2019 17:25, Stephen Hemminger:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:23:50 +0000
> Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com> wrote:
> 
> > Tuesday, November 19, 2019 11:33 AM, Thomas Monjalon:
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure
> > > 
> > > 18/11/2019 11:02, Shahaf Shuler:  
> > > >  struct rte_pktmbuf_pool_private {
> > > >  	uint16_t mbuf_data_room_size; /**< Size of data space in each  
> > > mbuf. */  
> > > >  	uint16_t mbuf_priv_size;      /**< Size of private area in each mbuf.  
> > > */  
> > > > +	uint32_t reserved; /**< reserved for future use. */  
> > > 
> > > Maybe simpler to give the future name "flags" and keep the comment
> > > "reserved for future use".  
> > 
> > I'm am OK w/ changing to flags.
> > If Olivier accepts maybe you can change while applying? 
> 
> After the Linux openat experience if you want to add flags.
> Then all usage of API needs to validate that flags is 0.

Sorry Stephen, I don't understand what you mean.
Please could you explain?