Hi,
On 30/03/15 18:39, Don Provan wrote:
> if (likely (rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(m) == 1) ||
> likely (rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(m, -1) == 0))
>
> In all the debate about atomics, I don't think anyone got around to pointing
> out that in the unlikely case that
On 27/03/15 15:30, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:07:35AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:32:38AM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 06:29:56AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:14:54PM +, Bruce Rich
2015-03-27 16:56, Richardson, Bruce:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 4:44 PM
> > To: Richardson, Bruce
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH]
> > > > > > > > if (likely (rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(m) == 1) ||
> > > > > > > > likely (rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(m, -1)
> > > > > > > > == 0))
In all the debate about atomics, I don't think anyone got around to pointing
out that in the unlikely case that the refcnt is
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 09:39:13PM +0200, Marc Sune wrote:
>
>
> On 27/03/15 15:30, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:07:35AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> >>On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:32:38AM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 06:29:56AM -0400, Neil Hor
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:39:06 +
Don Provan wrote:
> In all the debate about atomics, I don't think anyone got around to pointing
> out that in the unlikely case that the refcnt is not 1, then it's equally
> unlikely that decrementing it will result in 0 despite the code's claim to
> the con
> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 4:44 PM
> To: Richardson, Bruce
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: add comment explaining confusing
> code
>
> On Fri, Mar 2
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:38:41AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 02:30:50PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:07:35AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:32:38AM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 0
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:07:35AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:32:38AM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 06:29:56AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:14:54PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > > The logic used in the con
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 02:55:27PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:38:41AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 02:30:50PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:07:35AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 06:29:56AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:14:54PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > The logic used in the condition check before freeing an mbuf is
> > sometimes confusing, so explain it in a proper comment.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Neil Horman
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 10:30 AM
> To: Richardson, Bruce
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: add comment explaining confusing code
>
> On
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 02:30:50PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:07:35AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:32:38AM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 06:29:56AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 0
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:32:38AM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 06:29:56AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:14:54PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > The logic used in the condition check before freeing an mbuf is
> > > sometimes confusing, so
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:32:38AM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 06:29:56AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:14:54PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > The logic used in the condition check before freeing an mbuf is
> > > sometimes confusing, so
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:14:54PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> The logic used in the condition check before freeing an mbuf is
> sometimes confusing, so explain it in a proper comment.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson
> ---
> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 10 ++
> 1 file changed,
Hi Bruce,
On 03/26/2015 10:14 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> The logic used in the condition check before freeing an mbuf is
> sometimes confusing, so explain it in a proper comment.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson
> ---
> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 10 ++
> 1 file changed, 10 inse
The logic used in the condition check before freeing an mbuf is
sometimes confusing, so explain it in a proper comment.
Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson
---
lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 10 ++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_
18 matches
Mail list logo
