Hi Thomas, >>Do you have another commit before this one in your tree?
Yes this patch relies on this one: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/007943.html Sorry I didn't make it clear. The new field usr in rte_mbuf was under same cover letter in v2 of the in_flight_bitmask patch. Then in_flight_bitmask has a v3 patch, but I didn't include the rte_mbuf in the same cover letter, coz the usr patch has been ACKed. thx & rgds, -ql On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:50 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote: > Hi, > > 2014-11-10 16:44, Qinglai Xiao: > > With introduction of in_flight_bitmask, the whole 32 bits of tag can be > > used. Further more, this patch fixed the integer overflow when finding > > the matched tags. > > The maximum number workers is now defined as 64, which is length of > > double-word. The link between number of workers and RTE_MAX_LCORE is > > now removed. Compile time check is added to ensure the > > RTE_DISTRIB_MAX_WORKERS is less than or equal to size of double-word. > > > > Signed-off-by: Qinglai Xiao <jigsaw at gmail.com> > > The patch doesn't apply cleanly and fail to compile: > lib/librte_distributor/rte_distributor.c:310:27: error: ?union > <anonymous>? has no member named ?usr? > > Do you have another commit before this one in your tree? > > -- > Thomas >
