From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Richardson Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/13] enic: use Tx completion messages instead of descriptors Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 22:18:14 +0100 Message-ID: <20160610211813.GA15176@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1464071579-30072-1-git-send-email-johndale@cisco.com> <1464913377-30879-1-git-send-email-johndale@cisco.com> <1464913377-30879-8-git-send-email-johndale@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dev@dpdk.org, bruce.richarsdon@intel.com To: John Daley Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F5229CB for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 23:18:22 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1464913377-30879-8-git-send-email-johndale@cisco.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 05:22:51PM -0700, John Daley wrote: > The NIC can either DMA a separate completion message for each > completed send or periodically just DMA an index of the last > completed send. Switch to the second method which improves > cache locality and performance. > > Signed-off-by: John Daley Can you perhaps send me an updated wording for this commit message as the title and commit message conflict. The title says to use completion messages not descriptors, while the body talks about moving away from a completion message way of working. Is the former method a descriptor writeback method, while the latter a head pointer writeback? If so, I think the title could be: "enic: use Tx head pointer not descriptor writeback" or something similar. Again, if you send on the updated commit text, I'll just update it on apply. I'd ideally like to get this patchset pushed to next-net first thing Monday. /Bruce