On 27/11/2018 16:10, Stokes, Ian wrote:
>> On 27/11/2018 13:57, Stokes, Ian wrote:
Commit dfaf00e started using the result of dpdk_buf_size() to
calculate the available size on each mbuf, as opposed to using the
previous MBUF_SIZE macro. However, this was calculating the mbuf size
> On 27/11/2018 13:57, Stokes, Ian wrote:
> >> Commit dfaf00e started using the result of dpdk_buf_size() to
> >> calculate the available size on each mbuf, as opposed to using the
> >> previous MBUF_SIZE macro. However, this was calculating the mbuf size
> >> by adding up the MTU with
On 27/11/2018 13:57, Stokes, Ian wrote:
>> Commit dfaf00e started using the result of dpdk_buf_size() to calculate
>> the available size on each mbuf, as opposed to using the previous
>> MBUF_SIZE macro. However, this was calculating the mbuf size by adding up
>> the MTU with RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM
> Commit dfaf00e started using the result of dpdk_buf_size() to calculate
> the available size on each mbuf, as opposed to using the previous
> MBUF_SIZE macro. However, this was calculating the mbuf size by adding up
> the MTU with RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM and only then aligning to
>
Commit dfaf00e started using the result of dpdk_buf_size() to calculate
the available size on each mbuf, as opposed to using the previous
MBUF_SIZE macro. However, this was calculating the mbuf size by adding
up the MTU with RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM and only then aligning to
NETDEV_DPDK_MBUF_ALIGN.
