https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
Bala Manoharan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
--- Comment #14 from Bala Manoharan ---
Further internal design discussions on how to avoid this scenario.
If Maciej is fine this bug could be closed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
--- Comment #13 from Bala Manoharan ---
I have proposed an implementation change by which the API modification is not
required. Waiting for reply from Maceij
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
Mike Holmes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CONFIRMED |IN_PROGRESS
--- Comment #12 from Mike Holmes --
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
--- Comment #11 from Mike Holmes ---
Bala - any progress on this front ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
--- Comment #10 from Bala Manoharan ---
Hi Mike,
I had a discussion with Maciej, I am looking at his requirement.
Will send an update soon.
Regards,
Bala
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
--- Comment #9 from Mike Holmes ---
Maciej How do we close on this, are you submitting a patch ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
--- Comment #8 from Maciej Czekaj ---
(In reply to Bala Manoharan from comment #7)
> Regards,
> Bala
>
>
> On 3 November 2016 at 19:36, wrote:
> > https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
> >
> > --- Comment #6 from Maciej Czekaj ---
> > (In r
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
--- Comment #7 from Bala Manoharan ---
Regards,
Bala
On 3 November 2016 at 19:36, wrote:
> https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
>
> --- Comment #6 from Maciej Czekaj ---
> (In reply to Bala Manoharan from comment #5)
>> Application portabi
Regards,
Bala
On 3 November 2016 at 19:36, wrote:
> https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
>
> --- Comment #6 from Maciej Czekaj ---
> (In reply to Bala Manoharan from comment #5)
>> Application portability across multiple platforms can not be done without
>> any modifications. However I
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
--- Comment #6 from Maciej Czekaj ---
(In reply to Bala Manoharan from comment #5)
> Application portability across multiple platforms can not be done without
> any modifications. However I do not have an issue is adding the minimal pool
> size as capa
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
--- Comment #5 from Bala Manoharan ---
Application portability across multiple platforms can not be done without any
modifications. However I do not have an issue is adding the minimal pool size
as capability in the capability struct but in the point 2
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
--- Comment #4 from Maciej Czekaj ---
Bala,
I do not suggest that pktio should create a pool since, as you pointed out, the
pool may be shared by other pktio instance.
As for the solutions, an internal pool is not feasible, since most H/W is using
on
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
Bill Fischofer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bill.fischo...@linaro.org
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
--- Comment #2 from Bala Manoharan ---
Hi,
If we allow the pktio implementation to create the packet pool then it is not
possible to link a single pool to more than one pktio interface.
This issue could be resolved by pktio implementation adding the
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
Maxim Uvarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maxim.uva...@linaro.org
--- Comment #1 from Max
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2494
Mike Holmes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |CONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|0
17 matches
Mail list logo
