From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: fix icc issue with mbuf initializer Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:59:16 +0100 Message-ID: <2987294.1LlcqdoeYZ@xps13> References: <1415013076-30314-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <20141103124732.GB4840@bricha3-MOBL3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Bruce Richardson Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141103124732.GB4840@bricha3-MOBL3> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" 2014-11-03 12:47, Bruce Richardson: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 01:31:10PM +0100, David Marchand wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Richardson < > > > +#ifdef RTE_MBUF_REFCNT > > > + mb_def.refcnt = 1; > > > +#endif > > > > I would expect we use rte_mbuf_refcnt_set / rte_mbuf_refcnt_read to access > > this "refcnt" field. > > This api handles both RTE_MBUF_REFCNT_ATOMIC and ! RTE_MBUF_REFCNT_ATOMIC > > configs. > > But I suppose this is fine at init time (since the union will initialize > > properly the field). > > It's a good point, I'll update patch to use the appropriate macro which will clean up the code a bit. > > By the way, why do we have this RTE_MBUF_REFCNT_ATOMIC option ? > > From my point of view, there is not much use of a refcnt that is not atomic > > :-). Bruce, I think it's a good question but you didn't answer. Maybe we should remove this option to keep only atomic mode. -- Thomas