From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: make rearm_data address naturally
 aligned
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 16:30:33 +0100
Message-ID: <573F2D99.9080802@linaro.org>
References: <1463579863-32053-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <20160518164300.GA12324@bricha3-MOBL3>
 <20160518185011.GA4432@localhost.localdomain>
 <20160519085047.GA17500@bricha3-MOBL3>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B5AB67@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "thomas.monjalon@6wind.com" <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
 "viktorin@rehivetech.com" <viktorin@rehivetech.com>,
 "jianbo.liu@linaro.org" <jianbo.liu@linaro.org>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46192B433
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 20 May 2016 17:30:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id a17so178343702wme.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 20 May 2016 08:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B5AB67@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Hi,

On 19/05/16 13:18, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> I wonder does anyone really use mbuf port field?
> My though was - could we to drop it completely?

There are a few example codes which are reading the port field. Although 
they can retain this metadata in the private area of the mbuf, right 
after receiving, it would cause them a minor perf drop to do it 
separately. I'm not sure which one is more important: this perf drop of 
the gain everyone else has by relieving the drivers to do it.

Zoli