From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Lam, Tiago" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] net/af_packet: get 'framesz' from the iface's MTU Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 09:21:50 +0000 Message-ID: <2b264efd-c213-cffd-c5c0-b18bb563acad@intel.com> References: <1542707697-175836-1-git-send-email-tiago.lam@intel.com> <1542709592-215007-1-git-send-email-tiago.lam@intel.com> <1542709592-215007-3-git-send-email-tiago.lam@intel.com> <59e1bdba-331b-e337-56e7-dc4f52057d56@intel.com> <8b9cbc2b-3b1b-f8d8-7b03-43d7029a3058@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Ferruh Yigit , dev@dpdk.org, linville@tuxdriver.com Return-path: Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302366CC1 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 10:21:52 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <8b9cbc2b-3b1b-f8d8-7b03-43d7029a3058@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Ferruh, On 28/11/2018 13:33, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 11/28/2018 1:12 PM, Lam, Tiago wrote: >> On 27/11/2018 17:43, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>> On 11/20/2018 10:26 AM, Tiago Lam wrote: >>>> Use the underlying MTU to calculate the framsize to be used for the mmap >>>> RINGs. This is to make it more flexible on deployments with different >>>> MTU requirements, instead of using a pre-defined value of 2048B. >>> >>> This behavior change should be documented in af_packet documentation which is >>> missing unfortunately. >>> Would you able to introduce the initial/basic af_packet doc to at least to >>> document device argument? If not please let me know, I can work on it. >>> >> >> Thanks for the review, Ferruh. >> >> Yeah, I don't mind cooking something up and submitting here for review; >> I'll wait a couple of days for a reply from John W. before proceeding, >> though. > > Thanks, appreciated. Agreed to wait a little. > >> >> But given there's no documentation for af_packet yet, do you prefer to >> wait for that to be available, and apply it all together? Or could that >> be applied later as part of another patch? > > Both are OK, depends on your availability. > > I think it is better, to show the history, first patch as the documentation > patch for existing behavior and your patch updating framsz usage (3/3) to update > that document as well. As agreed, I just sent a patch with an initial take on adding some docs for af_packet. Once that's in I'll submit another revision of this patchset, including an update to the documentation. Just an aside, patch 1/3 of this series is a bugfix, it could go in irrespective of the documentation, it seems. Tiago.