From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olivier MATZ Subject: Re: [RFC] mbuf: remove unused rx error flags Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:25:26 +0200 Message-ID: <57344C06.1030007@6wind.com> References: <1462869609-13139-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <78fd3211f25f4d42aa481f6d741c8121@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "konstantin.ananyev@intel.com" , "helin.zhang@intel.com" , "arnon@qwilt.com" , "rolette@infinite.io" To: "John Daley (johndale)" , "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: Received: from proxy.6wind.com (host.76.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com [62.23.145.76]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4FDB5957 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 11:25:38 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <78fd3211f25f4d42aa481f6d741c8121@XCH-RCD-007.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" Hi, On 05/12/2016 03:32 AM, John Daley (johndale) wrote: >> This patch removes the unused flags from rte_mbuf, and their use in >> the drivers. The enic driver is modified to drop bad packets, but >> i40e and fm10k are kept as they are today and should be fixed to >> drop bad packets. > > Perhaps the change to enic to drop bad packets should be handled as a > separate patch since it's not strictly related to not removing the > use of the flags? Yes, it's probably better to have it in a separate patch. >> John, I did not test the patch on the enic driver, so please review >> it carefully. >> > > The patch works for enic, thanks. There are a few minor changes for > performance: - put an unlikely in the if (packet_error) conditional - > remove the if (!packet_error) conditional since it will always be > true. Let me know if you would prefer I submit the enic patch > separately. I'll do it, thanks for reviewing. I'll wait a bit for other comments before sending a first version of the patchset. Regards, Olivier