On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 06:34:09PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> On 06/29/2018 05:59 PM, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 03:43:15PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
[...]
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h
> > > index 34a614c97..671b4b3bf 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h
> > > @@ -84,7 +84,10 @@ struct log_cache_entry {
> > > * Structure contains variables relevant to RX/TX virtqueues.
> > > */
> > > struct vhost_virtqueue {
> > > - struct vring_desc *desc;
> > > + union {
> > > + struct vring_desc *desc;
> > > + struct vring_desc_packed *desc_packed;
> > > + };
> > > struct vring_avail *avail;
> > > struct vring_used *used;
> > > uint32_t size;
> > > @@ -122,6 +125,8 @@ struct vhost_virtqueue {
> > > struct batch_copy_elem *batch_copy_elems;
> > > uint16_t batch_copy_nb_elems;
> > > + uint16_t used_wrap_counter;
> > > + uint16_t avail_wrap_counter;
> >
> > Not quite sure about this. Do you think it will be
> > better to define wrap counters as bool (as only 0 or
> > 1 are available)?
>
> I think it should work, but not sure this is cleaner.
>
> When defining something as bool, I expect to use true or false
> for its assignment, but maybe that's me.
>
> But I could certainly use uint8_t instead to reduce the size of the
> struct.
>
> What do you think?
I don't have a strong opinion on this.
Jason suggested me to use bool in my patch [1].
So I wanted to hear your opinion too.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/29/47
Best regards,
Tiwei Bie
