Patch Comment List
List patch comments
GET /api/patches/303/comments/?format=api&order=date
[ { "id": 681, "web_url": "https://patches.dpdk.org/comment/681/", "msgid": "<540D8421.7070808@6wind.com>", "list_archive_url": "https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/540D8421.7070808@6wind.com", "date": "2014-09-08T10:25:37", "subject": "Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 04/13] mbuf: expand ol_flags field to 64-bits", "submitter": { "id": 8, "url": "https://patches.dpdk.org/api/people/8/?format=api", "name": "Olivier Matz", "email": "olivier.matz@6wind.com" }, "content": "Hi Bruce,\n\nOn 09/03/2014 05:49 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:\n> The offload flags field (ol_flags) was 16-bits and had no further room\n> for expansion. This patch increases the field size to 64-bits, using up\n> the remaining reserved space in the single-cache-line mbuf.\n> \n> NOTE: none of the values for existing flags have been changed, i.e. no\n> new numbers have been explicitly reserved between existing flag\n> definitions.\n> \n> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>\n\nThe initial series I've proposed [1][2] had on more enhancement: the\nfirst patch [1] allowed to remove the definition of flag names in\ntestpmd. Indeed, this is not really good because they must be kept\nsynchronized with the flags in rte_mbuf. What do you think about this\npatch? Should it be integrated in your series? Or later? Or never? ;)\n\nThe second patch [2] changes the value of the flags. This is not needed\nnow, but if we do it in the future, we should not forget to change\napp/test-pmd/cmdline.c accordingly. Maybe this could go in your patch\ndirectly as it does not hurt?\n\nOlivier\n\n\n[1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002545.html\n[2] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002546.html", "headers": { "Return-Path": "<dev-bounces@dpdk.org>", "X-Original-To": "patchwork@dpdk.org", "Delivered-To": "patchwork@dpdk.org", "Received": [ "from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [IPv6:::1])\n\tby dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04844B399;\n\tMon, 8 Sep 2014 12:20:49 +0200 (CEST)", "from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])\n\tby dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8943DB397\n\tfor <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 12:20:47 +0200 (CEST)", "from was59-1-82-226-113-214.fbx.proxad.net ([82.226.113.214]\n\thelo=[192.168.0.10]) by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa\n\t(TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128)\n\t(Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <olivier.matz@6wind.com>)\n\tid 1XQwBH-0007hB-9e; Mon, 08 Sep 2014 12:28:22 +0200" ], "Message-ID": "<540D8421.7070808@6wind.com>", "Date": "Mon, 08 Sep 2014 12:25:37 +0200", "From": "Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>", "User-Agent": "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;\n\trv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0", "MIME-Version": "1.0", "To": "Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org", "References": "<1409759378-10113-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com>\n\t<1409759378-10113-5-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com>", "In-Reply-To": "<1409759378-10113-5-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com>", "Content-Type": "text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1", "Content-Transfer-Encoding": "7bit", "Subject": "Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 04/13] mbuf: expand ol_flags field to 64-bits", "X-BeenThere": "dev@dpdk.org", "X-Mailman-Version": "2.1.15", "Precedence": "list", "List-Id": "patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>", "List-Unsubscribe": "<http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,\n\t<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>,\n\t<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>", "Errors-To": "dev-bounces@dpdk.org", "Sender": "\"dev\" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>" }, "addressed": null }, { "id": 709, "web_url": "https://patches.dpdk.org/comment/709/", "msgid": "<59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B0343EFA8F@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>", "list_archive_url": "https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B0343EFA8F@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com", "date": "2014-09-09T09:00:15", "subject": "Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 04/13] mbuf: expand ol_flags field to 64-bits", "submitter": { "id": 20, "url": "https://patches.dpdk.org/api/people/20/?format=api", "name": "Bruce Richardson", "email": "bruce.richardson@intel.com" }, "content": "> -----Original Message-----\n> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]\n> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 11:26 AM\n> To: Richardson, Bruce; dev@dpdk.org\n> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 04/13] mbuf: expand ol_flags field to 64-bits\n> \n> Hi Bruce,\n> \n> On 09/03/2014 05:49 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:\n> > The offload flags field (ol_flags) was 16-bits and had no further room\n> > for expansion. This patch increases the field size to 64-bits, using up\n> > the remaining reserved space in the single-cache-line mbuf.\n> >\n> > NOTE: none of the values for existing flags have been changed, i.e. no\n> > new numbers have been explicitly reserved between existing flag\n> > definitions.\n> >\n> > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>\n> \n> The initial series I've proposed [1][2] had on more enhancement: the\n> first patch [1] allowed to remove the definition of flag names in\n> testpmd. Indeed, this is not really good because they must be kept\n> synchronized with the flags in rte_mbuf. What do you think about this\n> patch? Should it be integrated in your series? Or later? Or never? ;)\n\nNo, 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. \n\n> \n> The second patch [2] changes the value of the flags. This is not needed\n> now, but if we do it in the future, we should not forget to change\n> app/test-pmd/cmdline.c accordingly. Maybe this could go in your patch\n> directly as it does not hurt?\n\nAs 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 :-( ). \n\n/Bruce\n\n> \n> Olivier\n> \n> \n> [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002545.html\n> [2] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-May/002546.html", "headers": { "Return-Path": "<dev-bounces@dpdk.org>", "X-Original-To": "patchwork@dpdk.org", "Delivered-To": "patchwork@dpdk.org", "Received": [ "from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [IPv6:::1])\n\tby dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CAD3B3B4;\n\tTue, 9 Sep 2014 10:56:25 +0200 (CEST)", "from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])\n\tby dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475D1B3B2\n\tfor <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 10:56:22 +0200 (CEST)", "from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])\n\tby orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Sep 2014 02:01:24 -0700", "from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159])\n\tby orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Sep 2014 02:00:29 -0700", "from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.112]) by\n\tIRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) with mapi id\n\t14.03.0195.001; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 10:00:15 +0100" ], "X-ExtLoop1": "1", "X-IronPort-AV": "E=Sophos;i=\"5.04,491,1406617200\"; d=\"scan'208\";a=\"570429827\"", "From": "\"Richardson, Bruce\" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>", "To": "Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, \"dev@dpdk.org\" <dev@dpdk.org>", "Thread-Topic": "[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 04/13] mbuf: expand ol_flags field to 64-bits", "Thread-Index": "AQHPx462Gn8M6DiOEk+JRDLawCNrxJv2/pWAgAGJD0A=", "Date": "Tue, 9 Sep 2014 09:00:15 +0000", "Message-ID": "<59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B0343EFA8F@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>", "References": "<1409759378-10113-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com>\n\t<1409759378-10113-5-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com>\n\t<540D8421.7070808@6wind.com>", "In-Reply-To": "<540D8421.7070808@6wind.com>", "Accept-Language": "en-GB, en-US", "Content-Language": "en-US", "X-MS-Has-Attach": "", "X-MS-TNEF-Correlator": "", "x-originating-ip": "[163.33.239.180]", "Content-Type": "text/plain; charset=\"us-ascii\"", "Content-Transfer-Encoding": "quoted-printable", "MIME-Version": "1.0", "Subject": "Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 04/13] mbuf: expand ol_flags field to 64-bits", "X-BeenThere": "dev@dpdk.org", "X-Mailman-Version": "2.1.15", "Precedence": "list", "List-Id": "patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>", "List-Unsubscribe": "<http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,\n\t<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>,\n\t<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>", "Errors-To": "dev-bounces@dpdk.org", "Sender": "\"dev\" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>" }, "addressed": null } ]