From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/8] mempool: introduce block size align
	flag
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:57:30 +0200
Message-ID: <20170907085729.vqnjv5qsl2m2bnnw@neon>
References: <20170815060743.21076-1-santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>
 <20170906112834.32378-1-santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>
 <20170906112834.32378-8-santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>
 <20170907081349.nznr2qv6f5pgs3ti@neon>
 <772eb46d-77ed-918f-7b9e-6fbd2d804b2c@caviumnetworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com,
 hemant.agrawal@nxp.com
To: santosh <santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CFC5199B1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  7 Sep 2017 10:57:38 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <772eb46d-77ed-918f-7b9e-6fbd2d804b2c@caviumnetworks.com>
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>

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:57:57PM +0530, santosh wrote:
> 
> On Thursday 07 September 2017 01:43 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 04:58:33PM +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote:
> >> --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
> >> +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h
> >> @@ -271,6 +271,10 @@ struct rte_mempool {
> >>   * Note: This flag should not be passed by application.
> >>   */
> >>  #define MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_PHYS_CONTIG 0x0040
> >> +/**
> >> + * Align object start address to total elem size
> >> + */
> >> +#define MEMPOOL_F_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS 0x0080
> > Same than with the other flag: since the meaning of this flag is not obvious
> > when we read the name, it has to be clearly described.
> > - say that it's virtual address
> > - say that it implies MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_PHYS_CONTIG
> > - say that it can be advertised by a driver and the application should
> >   not pass it
> >
> > And, since it shall not be passed by an application, I suggest to add
> > _CAPA too (i.e. MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS).
> >
> Ok, I will elaborate on FLAG description in v6,
> and Rename to MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS.
> 
> Can you please suggest are you ok with
> checking MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS | _PHYS_CONTIG
> in _xmem_size()/_usage(), asked in v4 [1] for same patch.
> 
> [1] http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/27600/ 
> 

yes, I'm ok with your proposition:
- MEMPOOL_F_CAPA_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS and _PHYS_CONTIG are capa flags,
  not set by application but by the handler
- the help says that _BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS implies _PHYS_CONTIG
- test both (_BLK_ALIGNED_OBJECTS | _PHYS_CONTIG) in _xmem_size()/_usage()