From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] net/af_packet: get 'framesz' from the
	iface's MTU
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:33:13 +0000
Message-ID: <8b9cbc2b-3b1b-f8d8-7b03-43d7029a3058@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>
 <e7c817bb-07af-365b-e2cd-2cf304052d5d@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
To: "Lam, Tiago" <tiago.lam@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org, linville@tuxdriver.com
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785B51B20C
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:33:16 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <e7c817bb-07af-365b-e2cd-2cf304052d5d@intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

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.

Thanks,
ferruh