From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olivier Matz Subject: Re: [PATCH] autotests: fix mempool element size in func_reentrancy Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:21:28 +0200 Message-ID: <570B7AA8.1010804@6wind.com> References: <1460367203-30925-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <7090107.qEOdApp0aR@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F0C04B79 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:21:35 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <7090107.qEOdApp0aR@xps13> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 04/11/2016 12:12 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-04-11 11:33, Olivier Matz: >> --- a/app/test/test_func_reentrancy.c >> +++ b/app/test/test_func_reentrancy.c >> @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ typedef void (*case_clean_t)(unsigned lcore_id); >> #define MAX_ITER_TIMES (16) >> #define MAX_LPM_ITER_TIMES (8) >> >> -#define MEMPOOL_ELT_SIZE (0) >> +#define MEMPOOL_ELT_SIZE (sizeof(uint32)) > > I understand the idea of the patch. > Using uint32_t would probably make a good fix ;) > Applied correctly, thanks You perfectly got the idea :) Thanks and sorry for the typo...