On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 07:55:39PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote: > Hi. > Just wanted to add some comments for the use-cases and testing methodology. > See inline. > > And I'm actually not sure if there any profit from this patch set? > It looks like an internal mbuf handling rework that only degrades > the performance and complicates the code. > > Please, don't consider me as merge blocker. I just want to understand > why you think we need this 1200 LOCs? > > --- > About 'resize()' related discussion: > Maybe it's worth to allow dp_packet APIs to return different dp_packet. > In this case we'll be able to just clone the packet to malloced memory > and resize in cases of not enough headroom available. > Like: > packet = eth_push_vlan(packet, vlan->vlan_tpid, vlan->vlan_tci); > or > eth_push_vlan(&packet, vlan->vlan_tpid, vlan->vlan_tci); > > This will have a little performance penalty in compare with data shifting > inside the mbuf, but will be much more elegant, and will allow to eliminate > all the OVS_NOT_REACHED cases. > > > Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
Hmm, this is the second person from whom I've heard serious misgivings about this patch series. Tiago, Ian, would you like to respond? I'm a little nervous about merging this patch series, especially relatively late before branching, given that some people have technical objections to it. Thanks, Ben. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
