On 04/10/2015 06:52 PM, Bill Fischofer wrote:
Signed-off-by: Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org
---
include/odp/api/packet.h | 20
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/odp/api/packet.h b/include/odp/api/packet.h
index a31c54d..840e152 100644
---
On 04/10/2015 06:52 PM, Bill Fischofer wrote:
Signed-off-by: Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org
---
include/odp/api/pool.h | 4
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/odp/api/pool.h b/include/odp/api/pool.h
index 241b98a..0092132 100644
--- a/include/odp/api/pool.h
If it stays I want it tested or it will rot like odp_shm has in this very
directory. To test it that probably means that helpers are independently tested
from the API so we need to find the correct location for the test - maybe
helpers need to be an independent library to start with ?
You
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
Signed-off-by: Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org
---
include/odp/api/pool.h | 4
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/odp/api/pool.h b/include/odp/api/pool.h
index 241b98a..0092132
Two minor aspect related nits, but this looks good to me.
Reviewed-and-tested-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
v4 changes:
- Removed RFC status, patch is now ready for API-NEXT
- Added implementation of
nit: typo in subject for metadata (or mdata?)
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
Signed-off-by: Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org
---
platform/linux-generic/include/odp_buffer_internal.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2
On 04/16/2015 11:35 AM, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote:
If it stays I want it tested or it will rot like odp_shm has in this
very directory. To test it that probably means that helpers are
independently tested from the API so we need to find the correct
location for the test - maybe
From: Balasubramanian Manoharan bala.manoha...@linaro.org
ODP Classifier example
This programs gets pmr rules as command-line parameter and configures the
classification engine
in the system.
This initial version supports the following
* ODP_PMR_SIP_ADDR pmr term
* PMR term MATCH and RANGE
-Original Message-
From: ext Benoît Ganne [mailto:bga...@kalray.eu]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 1:51 PM
To: Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo); Taras Kondratiuk
Cc: lng-odp
Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] api_test: remove odp_shm_test
I think there is a grey area here: we
-Original Message-
From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of ext
Taras Kondratiuk
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 12:05 PM
To: Bill Fischofer; lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv4 1/6] api: packet: add user
metadata APIs
On
-Original Message-
From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of ext
Taras Kondratiuk
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 12:07 PM
To: Bill Fischofer; lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCHv4 2/6] api: pool: add user metadata
APIs
On
On 15/04/15 22:45, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
On 15 April 2015 at 18:22, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
mailto:mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
On 15 April 2015 at 12:14, Zoltan Kiss zoltan.k...@linaro.org
mailto:zoltan.k...@linaro.org wrote:
Btw. is there any documentation
Hi,
Can you clarify the following:
1. The same PMR can be applied into different places in a classification
tree, but there is no way to modify each of its applications
separately. One can only destroy a rule completely which should
destroy all of its instances in a classification
Hi,
I think this should be typed (as bit field) and part of the odp_pktio_param_t
params that I introduced in patch api: packet_io: added odp_pktio_param_t. I
could rework those patches and add it there.
Something like this,
typedef struct odp_pktio_input_flags_t {
struct {
On 16 April 2015 at 13:40, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
petri.savolai...@nokia.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of ext
Taras Kondratiuk
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 12:05 PM
To: Bill Fischofer;
Event is a thing that can be transmitted through queues. Event gives you the
event type - nothing more. User needs to convert the received event according
to its event type ...
buf = odp_buffer_from_event(event);
.. to access the information
my_msg = odp_buffer_addr(buf);
Buffer gives you
On 04/16/2015 04:29 PM, Mike Holmes wrote:
We have an 80 char limit that is frequently an issue for strings and we
just accept that we ignore the warning.
Allow split strings so that there is a valid alternative
Thus the following example becomes a legal alternative to the 80 chars
warning.
On 16 April 2015 at 15:10, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
petri.savolai...@nokia.com wrote:
Event is a thing that can be transmitted through queues. Event gives you
the event type - nothing more. User needs to convert the received event
according to its event type ...
buf =
On 16 April 2015 at 15:50, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
On 16 April 2015 at 09:41, Taras Kondratiuk taras.kondrat...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 04/16/2015 04:29 PM, Mike Holmes wrote:
We have an 80 char limit that is frequently an issue for strings and we
just accept that we
Looking strictly at the patch I cannot understand the initial issue. Can you
give me a simple example using this new modified API?
Regarding the assertion . How can application detach PMR from the first PktIO,
but leave it connected to the second one?
One possible solution is to limit this
On 04/16/2015 04:50 PM, Mike Holmes wrote:
On 16 April 2015 at 09:41, Taras Kondratiuk taras.kondrat...@linaro.org
mailto:taras.kondrat...@linaro.org wrote:
On 04/16/2015 04:29 PM, Mike Holmes wrote:
We have an 80 char limit that is frequently an issue for strings
and we
On 16/04/15 13:33, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote:
Hi,
I think this should be typed (as bit field) and part of the odp_pktio_param_t params that
I introduced in patch api: packet_io: added odp_pktio_param_t. I could rework
those patches and add it there.
Ok, that would be
On 16/04/15 19:39, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
Hi,
If I add new data area, can I do that at the expense of the actual
segment's tailroom? (by shifting data up into the tailroom to make
space) In other words: does this necessarily increase odp_packet_buf_len()?
And if I remove data area, do I have to
23 matches
Mail list logo
