From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 09/29] mem: add iovec-like allocation
	wrappers
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:00:00 +0100
Message-ID: <26d6edfa-083e-2c40-d84c-f24c90a5ec8e@intel.com>
References: <cover.1507730496.git.adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
 <18771436831105304b9f7c133cc51e8c867f4273.1507730496.git.adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
 <51cd7192-003e-ee97-e511-4539eff580f0@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 721851B206
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:00:02 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <51cd7192-003e-ee97-e511-4539eff580f0@intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
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 10/11/2017 10:58 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 10/11/2017 3:35 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
>> These wrappers implement the ability to allocate room for several disparate
>> objects as a single contiguous allocation while complying with their
>> respective alignment constraints.
>>
>> This is usually more efficient than allocating and freeing them
>> individually if they are not expected to be reallocated with rte_realloc().
>>
>> A typical use case is when several objects that cannot be dissociated must
>> be allocated together, as shown in the following example:
>>
>>  struct b {
>>     ...
>>     struct d *d;
>>  }
>>
>>  struct a {
>>      ...
>>      struct b *b;
>>      struct c *c;
>>  }
>>
>>  struct rte_malloc_vec vec[] = {
>>      { .size = sizeof(struct a), .addr = &ptr_a, }
>>      { .size = sizeof(struct b), .addr = &ptr_b, },
>>      { .size = sizeof(struct c), .addr = &ptr_c, },
>>      { .size = sizeof(struct d), .addr = &ptr_d, },
>>  };
>>
>>  if (!rte_mallocv(NULL, vec, RTE_DIM(vec)))
>>      goto error;
>>
>>  struct a *a = ptr_a;
>>
>>  a->b = ptr_b;
>>  a->c = ptr_c;
>>  a->b->d = ptr_d;
>>  ...
>>  rte_free(a);
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
>> Acked-by: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
> 
> Hi Adrien,
> 
> Why there is an eal patch in the middle of the mlx4 patchset?
> 
> I believe this shouldn't go in via next-net tree, and should be reviewed
> properly.
> 
> I am behaving more flexible for PMD patches about the process and
> timing, because their scope is limited.
> PMD patches can break at most the PMD itself and if the maintainer is
> sending the patch, they should be knowing what they are doing, so vendor
> gets the responsibility for their own driver. I am paying majority of
> care to be sure it doesn't break others.
> 
> But ethdev and eal way beyond those flexibility, because their scope is
> much larger.
> 
> Can you please extract this patch from the patchset?

cc'ed Thomas.