On 11-Jan-19 10:58 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:40:19AM +0000, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
<...>
+ * Copyright(c) 2016-2019 Intel Corporation
*/
/**
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ rte_event_ring_enqueue_burst(struct rte_event_ring *r,
const struct rte_event *events,
unsigned int n, uint16_t *free_space)
{
- uint32_t prod_head, prod_next;
+ uintptr_t prod_head, prod_next;
I would also question the use of uinptr_t. I think semnatically, size_t is
more appropriate.
Yes, it would, but I believe in this case they want to use the largest size
of (unsigned)int where there exists an atomic for manipulating 2 of them
simultaneously. [The largest size is to minimize any chance of an ABA issue
occuring]. Therefore we need 32-bit values on 32-bit and 64-bit on 64, and
I suspect the best way to guarantee this is to use pointer-sized values. If
size_t is guaranteed across all OS's to have the same size as uintptr_t it
could also be used, though.
/Bruce
Technically, size_t and uintptr_t are not guaranteed to match. In
practice, they won't match only on architectures that DPDK doesn't
intend to run on (such as 16-bit segmented archs, where size_t would be
16-bit but uinptr_t would be 32-bit).
In all the rest of DPDK code, we use size_t for this kind of thing.
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
