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
