From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:52:19 +0200 Message-ID: <3838676.MhgVrxv5VX@xps13> References: <1426179268-22164-1-git-send-email-john.mcnamara@intel.com> <2572007.3HCLxGSxJD@xps13> <20150323160058.GA5661@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: "Mcnamara, John" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150323160058.GA5661-B26myB8xz7F8NnZeBjwnZQMhkBWG/bsMQH7oEaQurus@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" 2015-03-23 12:00, Neil Horman: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 04:16:36PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > I think John is saying that the API of rte_eth_rx_burst() already includes > > the nb_pkts parameter. So it's natural to push it to the callback. > > I also think Neil is saying that this parameter is useless in the callback > > and in rte_eth_rx_burst() if the array was null terminated. > > In any case, having a mix (null termination + parameter in rte_eth_rx_burst) > > is not acceptable. > > Moreover, I wonder how efficient are the compiler optimizations in each loop > > case (index and null termination). > > > > As the API was using an integer count, my opinion is to keep it and push it to > > the callback for 2.0. > > If null termination is validated to be better, it could be a later rework. > > > > I'm fine with this if thats the consensus, I'm more interested in making sure we > think about these problems in such a way that we're not just running from ABI > issues, because we're eventually going to have to deal with them > Neil Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon Applied, thanks