[dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH v11 2/4] eal: add legacy kni option

Vamsi Krishna Attunuru vattunuru at marvell.com
Tue Oct 22 15:31:29 CEST 2019

Hi Ferruh,

Can you please explain the problems in using kni dedicated mbuf alloc routines while enabling kni iova=va mode. Please see the below discussion with Andrew. He wanted to know the problems in having newer APIs.

I wanted to clarify ourselves about the need of mem pool patch(V11 1/4) and where to fit the fix(newer APIs or fix in mempool lib) before I start reworking the patches.

A Vamsi

> snipped
> >>
> >> This is new feature, who want to use it adding a specific flag makes
> >> more sense to me than all old users have to add the flag.
> >
> > Ferruh suggested to have a flag for enabling these new feature and also not
> interested in having  newer mempool alloc APIs for KNI(see V10 review
> comments). Before reworking on the flag changes, I would like check with you
> whether the same flag can be used in mempool lib for checking and fulfilling the
> mempool  page boundary requirement (mempool patch v11 1/4), by doing so, it
> can avoid newer exported APIs both in mempool and KNI lib. Anyways, these
> mempool requirement can be addressed with Olivier's below patches.
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__patchwork.dpdk.org
> > _project_dpdk_list_-3Fseries-
> 3D5624&d=DwICaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&
> > r=WllrYaumVkxaWjgKto6E_rtDQshhIhik2jkvzFyRhW8&m=tCO-
> 8E27vdyIVMm_35Qv6K
> > -OwGCIobWI0H9DGGBm-gc&s=9aLHS9Og5L0uhuLGFAuQ9NAT3-
> hlFmtc9RrrSbLQC00&e=
> >
> > When those patches are merged,  flag check can be removed.
> It is really hard to follow, sorry.
> Is it really a problem to have KNI switcher to enable new behaviour and
> document it that dedicated function should be used to allocate mbufs?
> Andrew.
> > Regards
> > A Vamsi

More information about the dev mailing list