From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mbuf: cleanup rte_pktmbuf_lastseg(),
 fix atomic usage
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:37:46 +0100
Message-ID: <20171116093745.sbmfa24jtu4r2ms4@platinum>
References: <20171115091413.27119-1-hhaim@cisco.com>
 <1D98684F-B8A9-4037-8534-0D4E3A1FD34C@gmail.com>
 <ad03f3a3142141afb9dc565500429df9@XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com>
 <20171115173058.mrkrv3usbl5sfw3h@platinum>
 <2fa9a7806c9e447995d6017c6def9894@XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com>
 <20171116084112.ockgmxnxews7coie@platinum>
 <d36d343ac5594b0ca85f79902a917dd8@XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com>
 <5C1B1043-3444-4750-A7AB-D96403C61E42@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "Hanoch Haim (hhaim)" <hhaim@cisco.com>,
 Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Ilya Matveychikov <matvejchikov@gmail.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3654F1B2D7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:37:59 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5C1B1043-3444-4750-A7AB-D96403C61E42@gmail.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 01:32:13PM +0400, Ilya Matveychikov wrote:
> 
> > On Nov 16, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Hanoch Haim (hhaim) <hhaim@cisco.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Understood 
> > 
> > rte_mbuf_refcnt_update_blind() 
> > 
> > should be good., it will take care the RTE_MBUF_REFCNT_ATOMIC 
> > 
> 
> 
> Why guys not to add just __rte_mbuf_refcnt_update() as a wrapper over
> rte_atomic16_add_return() and use it in inside rte_mbuf_refcnt_update() and
> rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg() as well?
> 

Is there any other difference with rte_mbuf_refcnt_update_blind() except
the function name?