[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/8] net/mlx4: Tx path improvements

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 11/2/2017 10:07 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
>> v1:
>> This series is a follow-up of the new datapath implementation introduced in RC1.
>> It is dedicated to Tx and improves the performance.
>>
>> v2:
>> Change uint32_t be_lkey to rte_be32_t lkey
>>
>> v3:
>> Rebase to 17.11-rc2.
>> Remove "net/mlx4: save lkey in big-endian format" patch which degrade performance.
>> Merge separate segment cases patches "net/mlx4: improve performance of one Tx segment" and "net/mlx4: separate Tx for multi-segments".
>> "net/mlx4: inline more Tx functions" renamed to "net/mlx4: associate MR to MP in a short function".
>> Leave bytes counter as old version.
>> Add memory barrier improvement patch.
>> Remove empty segment support.
>>
>> v4:
>> Remove "net/mlx4: remove empty Tx segment support" patch.
>> Add "fix ring wraparound compiler hint" patch.
>> Add "fix HW memory optimizations careless" patch.
>> Remove unnecessary IO memory barrier in completion function.
>> Remove inline declaration of completion function.
>> Fix unnecessary empty lines.
>> Fix indetations.
>> Move max=0 check removal to patch "remove duplicate handling in Tx burst" and rename the patch.
>> Add performace improvement in patch "mitigate Tx path memory barriers"
>>
>> v5:
>> Fix compilation issue in debug mode for patch "net/mlx4: associate MR to MP in a short function".
>> Add missing includes in "net/mlx4: associate MR to MP in a short function".
>> Add cq_uar as volatile too in "net/mlx4: fix HW memory optimizations careless".
>> Fix indentation issues in "net/mlx4: separate Tx segment cases".
> 
> OK for this version, although looks like you didn't include:
> 
>  "net/mlx4: fix missing include"  
> 
> in front of the series. mlx4_utils.h remains to be fixed, although I don't
> think a v6 is needed for such a minor commit.
> 
> Ferruh, can you apply the above patch first for consistency?

Yes I can, no need a new version for this.

> 
> Thanks.
>