2016-07-01 10:57, Olivier MATZ:
>
> On 06/30/2016 10:05 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-06-30 13:49, Bruce Richardson:
> >> The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what their
> >> names suggested. The free_count function actually returned the number of
> >> elements that w
On 06/30/2016 10:05 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-06-30 13:49, Bruce Richardson:
>> The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what their
>> names suggested. The free_count function actually returned the number of
>> elements that were allocated from the pool, not the number
2016-06-30 13:49, Bruce Richardson:
> The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what their
> names suggested. The free_count function actually returned the number of
> elements that were allocated from the pool, not the number unallocated as
> the name implied.
>
> Fix this by i
The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what their
names suggested. The free_count function actually returned the number of
elements that were allocated from the pool, not the number unallocated as
the name implied.
Fix this by introducing two new functions to replace the old
4 matches
Mail list logo
