Hello,
I saw two comments, and the first one
" Please add:
sta...@dpdk.org to the Cc list" then I added sta...@dpdk.org to Cc. Would
you like me to add it to the commit?

Second one :
“Set the maximum reclamation size to user provided value”  I set this
comment to the header. I thought it was more meaningful in the header. If
you want also, I can insert it in the description part.

Do I miss something else?


On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 5:34 PM Honnappa Nagarahalli <
honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com> wrote:

> Hi Abdullah,
>         I do not see the changes I suggested in this version.
>
> > On May 13, 2024, at 5:00 AM, Abdullah Ömer Yamaç <aomerya...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > In the previous implementation, the maximum reclamation size was set
> > to RTE_HASH_RCU_DQ_RECLAIM_MAX and it was not configurable. This patch
> > uses the configuration argument to set the maximum reclamation size.
> >
> > Fixes: 769b2de7fb52 ("hash: implement RCU resources reclamation")
> > Cc: dharmik.thak...@arm.com
> > Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>
> > Cc: Yipeng Wang <yipeng1.w...@intel.com>
> > Cc: Sameh Gobriel <sameh.gobr...@intel.com>
> > Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> > Cc: Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medved...@intel.com>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Abdullah Ömer Yamaç <aomerya...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > lib/hash/rte_cuckoo_hash.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/hash/rte_cuckoo_hash.c b/lib/hash/rte_cuckoo_hash.c
> > index 9cf94645f6..f7f0fdfd21 100644
> > --- a/lib/hash/rte_cuckoo_hash.c
> > +++ b/lib/hash/rte_cuckoo_hash.c
> > @@ -1557,6 +1557,7 @@ rte_hash_rcu_qsbr_add(struct rte_hash *h, struct
> rte_hash_rcu_config *cfg)
> > if (params.size == 0)
> > params.size = total_entries;
> > params.trigger_reclaim_limit = cfg->trigger_reclaim_limit;
> > + params.max_reclaim_size = cfg->max_reclaim_size;
> > if (params.max_reclaim_size == 0)
> > params.max_reclaim_size = RTE_HASH_RCU_DQ_RECLAIM_MAX;
> > params.esize = sizeof(struct __rte_hash_rcu_dq_entry);
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
>
>

Reply via email to