From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ilya Matveychikov <matvejchikov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mbuf: cleanup rte_pktmbuf_lastseg(),
 fix atomic usage
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:44:14 +0400
Message-ID: <6554ABA5-A390-434B-BB59-3A1AB1C33C01@gmail.com>
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>
 <20171116093745.sbmfa24jtu4r2ms4@platinum>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "Hanoch Haim (hhaim)" <hhaim@cisco.com>,
 Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com (mail-wm0-f65.google.com [74.125.82.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404251B2E5
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:44:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id y80so8106147wmd.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 01:44:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20171116093745.sbmfa24jtu4r2ms4@platinum>
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 Nov 16, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 01:32:13PM +0400, Ilya Matveychikov wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Nov 16, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Hanoch Haim (hhaim) <hhaim@cisco.com> =
wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Understood=20
>>>=20
>>> rte_mbuf_refcnt_update_blind()=20
>>>=20
>>> should be good., it will take care the RTE_MBUF_REFCNT_ATOMIC=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> 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?
>>=20
>=20
> Is there any other difference with rte_mbuf_refcnt_update_blind() =
except
> the function name?

No really, but my suggestion was not only about the name but to use such =
a
function inside rte_mbuf_refcnt_update() too. Also, that is common =
naming
scheme in Linux kernel =E2=80=94 to add =E2=80=9C__=E2=80=9D prefix for =
for =E2=80=9Clightweight=E2=80=9D functions.

Anyway, IMO having a function will be better than having =
ifdef/else/endif
block.=20