Hi Xialong,
On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 01:29:55PM +0800, Xiaolong Ye wrote:
> TAILQ_ENTRY next is not needed in struct mbuf_dynfield_elt and
> mbuf_dynflag_elt, since they are actually chained by rte_tailq_entry's
> next field when calling TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(mbuf_dynfield/dynflag_list, te,
> next).
>
> Fixes: 4958ca3a443a ("mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags")
> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong...@intel.com>
Good catch, I forgot to remove this field which was used in former
implementations. Thanks!
I suggest to update the title to highlight it's about dynamic mbuf:
mbuf: remove unused next member in dyn flag/field
Apart from this:
Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>
> ---
>
> I found this issue when reading the mbuf dynfiled/dynflag feature code,
> mbuf_autotest is passed with this change, though I may miss something or
> this filed has some special design purpose, please correct me if I am
> wrong.
>
> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c
> index d6931f847..953e3ec31 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c
> @@ -19,7 +19,6 @@
> #define RTE_MBUF_DYN_MZNAME "rte_mbuf_dyn"
>
> struct mbuf_dynfield_elt {
> - TAILQ_ENTRY(mbuf_dynfield_elt) next;
> struct rte_mbuf_dynfield params;
> size_t offset;
> };
> @@ -31,7 +30,6 @@ static struct rte_tailq_elem mbuf_dynfield_tailq = {
> EAL_REGISTER_TAILQ(mbuf_dynfield_tailq);
>
> struct mbuf_dynflag_elt {
> - TAILQ_ENTRY(mbuf_dynflag_elt) next;
> struct rte_mbuf_dynflag params;
> unsigned int bitnum;
> };
> --
> 2.17.1
>
