From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: santosh <santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/8] mempool: introduce block size align
	flag
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 13:57:57 +0530
Message-ID: <772eb46d-77ed-918f-7b9e-6fbd2d804b2c@caviumnetworks.com>
References: <20170815060743.21076-1-santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>
 <20170906112834.32378-1-santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>
 <20170906112834.32378-8-santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>
 <20170907081349.nznr2qv6f5pgs3ti@neon>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com,
 hemant.agrawal@nxp.com
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-by2nam03on0055.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.42.55])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0BD374E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  7 Sep 2017 10:28:16 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20170907081349.nznr2qv6f5pgs3ti@neon>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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>


On Thursday 07 September 2017 01:43 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 04:58:33PM +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote:
>> --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
>> +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
>> @@ -271,6 +271,10 @@ struct rte_mempool {
>>   * Note: This flag should not be passed by application.
>>   */
>>  #define MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_PHYS_CONTIG 0x0040
>> +/**
>> + * Align object start address to total elem size
>> + */
>> +#define MEMPOOL_F_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS 0x0080
> Same than with the other flag: since the meaning of this flag is not obvious
> when we read the name, it has to be clearly described.
> - say that it's virtual address
> - say that it implies MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_PHYS_CONTIG
> - say that it can be advertised by a driver and the application should
>   not pass it
>
> And, since it shall not be passed by an application, I suggest to add
> _CAPA too (i.e. MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS).
>
Ok, I will elaborate on FLAG description in v6,
and Rename to MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS.

Can you please suggest are you ok with
checking MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS | _PHYS_CONTIG
in _xmem_size()/_usage(), asked in v4 [1] for same patch.

[1] http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/27600/