From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olivier MATZ Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] mbuf: expand ol_flags field to 64-bits Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 12:25:37 +0200 Message-ID: <540D8421.7070808@6wind.com> References: <1409759378-10113-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <1409759378-10113-5-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: <1409759378-10113-5-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 09/03/2014 05:49 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > The offload flags field (ol_flags) was 16-bits and had no further room > for expansion. This patch increases the field size to 64-bits, using up > the remaining reserved space in the single-cache-line mbuf. > > NOTE: none of the values for existing flags have been changed, i.e. no > new numbers have been explicitly reserved between existing flag > definitions. > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson The initial series I've proposed [1][2] had on more enhancement: the first patch [1] allowed to remove the definition of flag names in testpmd. Indeed, this is not really good because they must be kept synchronized with the flags in rte_mbuf. What do you think about this patch? Should it be integrated in your series? Or later? Or never? ;) The second patch [2] changes the value of the flags. This is not needed now, but if we do it in the future, we should not forget to change app/test-pmd/cmdline.c accordingly. Maybe this could go in your patch directly as it does not hurt? Olivier [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002545.html [2] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002546.html