From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olivier MATZ Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] mbuf: remove rte_ctrlmbuf Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 10:21:47 +0200 Message-ID: <540D671B.9040104@6wind.com> References: <1409154628-30825-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <1409240559-14447-4-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Bruce Richardson , dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1409240559-14447-4-git-send-email-bruce.richardson-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" Hi Bruce, On 08/28/2014 05:42 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > From: Olivier Matz > > The initial role of rte_ctrlmbuf is to carry generic messages (data > pointer + data length) but it's not used by the DPDK or it applications. > Keeping it implies: > - loosing 1 byte in the rte_mbuf structure > - having some dead code rte_mbuf.[ch] > > This patch removes this feature. Thanks to it, it is now possible to > simplify the rte_mbuf structure by merging the rte_pktmbuf structure > in it. This is done in next commit. > > Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz > > * Updated patch to HEAD. > * Modified patch to retain the old function names for ctrl mbufs as > macros. This helps with app compatibility, and allows the concept > of a control mbuf to be reintroduced via a single-bit flag in > a future change. > * Updated the packet framework ip_pipeline example application to > work following this change. > > Changes in v2: > * Fixed whitespace errors introduced by this patch flagged by checkpatch > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson To be honest, I'm not convinced that keeping the old function names is really required, but I suppose you had good reasons to reintroduce them. Just for information, is it for compatibility purpose or is there a real wish to reintroduce a sort of control mbuf in the future ? Acked-by: Olivier Matz