On 06/09, Olivier Matz wrote:
>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>
Thanks for the ack, I'll submit V2 with suggested subject.
Thanks,
Xiaolong
>
>> ---
>>
>> 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
>>
