> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 12:46 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>; Richardson,
> Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Wang,
> Haiyue <haiyue.w...@intel.com>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> <jer...@marvell.com>; Wiles, Keith <keith.wi...@intel.com>; Morten
> Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com>; Stephen Hemminger
> <step...@networkplumber.org>; Thomas Monjalon
> <tho...@monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:19:46PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:51:51PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> > > > +/* Allocate and initialize the shared memory. Assume tailq is locked */
> > > > +static int
> > > > +init_shared_mem(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + const struct rte_memzone *mz;
> > > > + uint64_t mask;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY) {
> > > > + mz = rte_memzone_reserve_aligned(RTE_MBUF_DYN_MZNAME,
> > > > + sizeof(struct
> > > > mbuf_dyn_shm),
> > > > + SOCKET_ID_ANY, 0,
> > > > + RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE);
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + mz = rte_memzone_lookup(RTE_MBUF_DYN_MZNAME);
> > > > + }
> > > > + if (mz == NULL)
> > > > + return -1;
> > > > +
> > > > + shm = mz->addr;
> > > > +
> > > > +#define mark_free(field)
> > > > \
> > > > + memset(&shm->free_space[offsetof(struct rte_mbuf, field)],
> > > > \
> > > > + 1, sizeof(((struct rte_mbuf *)0)->field))
> > >
> > > Still think it would look nicer without multi-line macro defines/undef in
> > > the middle of the function.
> >
> > I rather think that macro helps to make the code more readable, but it's
> > probably just a matter of taste. Will someone puts a contract on me if I
> > keep it like this? If yes I'll do the change ;)
>
> More seriously, do you prefer if I move the macro definition above the
> function?
Yes, would look better to me.
