[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 04/13] mbuf: expand ol_flags field to 64-bits

[Richardson, Bruce]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 11:26 AM
> To: Richardson, Bruce; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 04/13] mbuf: expand ol_flags field to 64-bits
> 
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> On 09/03/2014 05:49 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > The offload flags field (ol_flags) was 16-bits and had no further room
> > for expansion. This patch increases the field size to 64-bits, using up
> > the remaining reserved space in the single-cache-line mbuf.
> >
> > NOTE: none of the values for existing flags have been changed, i.e. no
> > new numbers have been explicitly reserved between existing flag
> > definitions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com>
> 
> The initial series I've proposed [1][2] had on more enhancement: the
> first patch [1] allowed to remove the definition of flag names in
> testpmd. Indeed, this is not really good because they must be kept
> synchronized with the flags in rte_mbuf. What do you think about this
> patch? Should it be integrated in your series? Or later? Or never? ;)

No, it is a good change - I've just keep it out of my series for simplicity as I'm largely trying to keep the scope as small as possible. I would love to see that go in as a separate patch maybe once the mbuf rework is finished. 

> 
> The second patch [2] changes the value of the flags. This is not needed
> now, but if we do it in the future, we should not forget to change
> app/test-pmd/cmdline.c accordingly. Maybe this could go in your patch
> directly as it does not hurt?

As above for now. Right now I'm just trying to get the structure worked out, and deal with any performance regressions that are found (such as what Pablo found last Friday :-( ). 

/Bruce

> 
> Olivier
> 
> 
> [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002545.html
> [2] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002546.html