From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: clarify comment on adding TX offload flags Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:16:06 +0200 Message-ID: <3447099.1oAx4vilGg@xps13> References: <1436448159-8394-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <55A632E7.6000108@6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Bruce Richardson Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ADE5C322 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:17:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so11679426wib.0 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 05:17:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55A632E7.6000108@6wind.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" 2015-07-15 12:16, Olivier MATZ: > On 07/09/2015 03:22 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > The comment for TX offload flags stated that those flags started at bit > > 55 and then were added to the right of that, leaving 8 bits reserved for > > generic mbuf (i.e. non-offload) use. This comment may not have been > > clear as 5 of the 8 flags which were reserved have now been used for TX > > offloads. > > This patch: > > * updates the description so that it now reflects reality that > > only three flags are available for generic mbuf use > > * reserved the final generic flag so that it can't be taken over for TX > > offload in future > > * clarifies the comment for TX flags to indicate that they should be > > counting downwards not upwards. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson > > Acked-by: Olivier Matz Applied, thanks