-----Original Message-----
From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo [mailto:pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com]
Sent: 05 July 2018 16:56
To: Verma, Shally <redacted>; Gupta, Ashish <redacted>; Trahe, Fiona <redacted>;
Daly, Lee [off-list ref]; Sahu, Sunila [off-list ref]
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 3/4] compressdev: replace mbuf scatter gather flag

External Email

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Verma, Shally [mailto:Shally.Verma@cavium.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 12:13 PM
To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <redacted>; Gupta, Ashish
[off-list ref]; Trahe, Fiona [off-list ref]; Daly, Lee
[off-list ref]; Sahu, Sunila [off-list ref]
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 3/4] compressdev: replace mbuf scatter gather flag

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo [mailto:pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com]
Sent: 05 July 2018 16:36
To: Verma, Shally <redacted>; Gupta, Ashish
[off-list ref]; Trahe, Fiona [off-list ref]; Daly,
Lee [off-list ref]; Sahu, Sunila [off-list ref]
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 3/4] compressdev: replace mbuf scatter gather
flag

External Email

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Verma, Shally [mailto:Shally.Verma@cavium.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 9:39 AM
To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <redacted>; Gupta,
Ashish [off-list ref]; Trahe, Fiona
[off-list ref]; Daly, Lee [off-list ref]; Sahu, Sunila
[off-list ref]
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 3/4] compressdev: replace mbuf scatter gather
flag

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Pablo de Lara [mailto:pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com]
Sent: 04 July 2018 19:41
To: Verma, Shally <redacted>; Gupta, Ashish
[off-list ref]; fiona.trahe@intel.com; lee.daly@intel.com
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Pablo de Lara <redacted>
Subject: [PATCH v3 3/4] compressdev: replace mbuf scatter gather
flag

External Email

The current mbuf scatter gather feature flag is too ambiguous, as it
is not clear if input and/or output buffers can be scatter gather
mbufs or not.

Therefore, three new flags will replace this flag:
- RTE_COMP_FF_OOP_SGL_IN_SGL_OUT
- RTE_COMP_FF_OOP_SGL_IN_FB_OUT
- RTE_COMP_FF_OOP_FB_IN_SGL_OUT

[Shally] Believe Out of place is default support on current
compression API, so why do we need _OOP_ here?

Hi Shally,

You are right, but I just wanted to clarify that the scenario is for Out of place

only.

quoted

Ok. But that looks redundant to me. Though not likely, tomorrow if some algo
support in-place, Then we will end up adding in_place equivalent of same. So
would prefer to keep naming generic of in/out place and specific to Scatter-
gather in/out support.

I think I am not quite following you. Actually, if in the future we support
In-place, then it is important to have OOP in the macro, to specify that SGL
is supported for Out-of-place and maybe not in-place (like in cryptodev).
Otherwise, we would need to break the API, which can be avoided now.

Ohh okay, now I get it. So these feature flags intend to show input/output mode supported
specifically for in/out of place operations.  But then still I see having OOP isn't required as compression
default support is out-of-place and it's just making feature name too big. Having in-place is exception 
and if supported, can use convention RTE_COMP_FF_INPLACE_xx

Above one comment, as I see it, use of FB in RTE_COMP_FF_OOP_FB_IN_SGL_OUT didn't give clear indication what it mean.
May be replace it by RTE_COMP_FF_OOP_DIRECT/LINEAR_IN_SGL_OUT

Just few suggestions.
Thanks
Shally

- 

Thanks,
Pablo

quoted

quoted

Thanks,
Pablo

quoted

Thanks
Shally

quoted

Note that out-of-place flat buffers is supported by default and
in-place is not supported by the library.

Signed-off-by: Pablo de Lara <redacted>
Acked-by: Fiona Trahe <redacted>