From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olivier MATZ Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: clarify comment on adding TX offload flags Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:16:07 +0200 Message-ID: <55A632E7.6000108@6wind.com> References: <1436448159-8394-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Bruce Richardson , dev@dpdk.org Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com [209.85.212.170]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 452C45A5D for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:16:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so76885065wib.1 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 03:16:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1436448159-8394-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.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 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