From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] get status of Rx and Tx descriptors
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 11:41:19 +0100
Message-ID: <13182132.yKpPPRBi6o@xps13>
References: <1479981261-19512-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
 <1d681ebc-bc85-934b-0d94-7b0b7faaaa77@solarflare.com>
 <20170302144052.5350f795@platinum>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, wenzhuo.lu@intel.com, helin.zhang@intel.com,
 jingjing.wu@intel.com, adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com, nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com,
 ferruh.yigit@intel.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com
To: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D0B108A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  6 Mar 2017 11:41:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id v186so60230369wmd.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 02:41:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20170302144052.5350f795@platinum>
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>

2017-03-02 14:40, Olivier Matz:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 21:02:16 +0300, Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com> wrote:
> > On 03/01/2017 08:19 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > > This patchset introduces a new ethdev API:
> > > - rte_eth_rx_descriptor_status()
> > > - rte_eth_tx_descriptor_status()  
> > 
> > May be corresponding features should be added to the NICs documentation?
> 
> Yes, good idea.
> 
> I propose to use these straightforward names: "Rx Descriptor Status"
> and "Tx Descriptor Status".

Yes