On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 02:06:27PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 03:36:48PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 04:46:36PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > > @@ -494,9 +486,6 @@ virtio_dev_tx_queue_setup(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> > > {
> > > uint8_t vtpci_queue_idx = 2 * queue_idx + VTNET_SQ_TQ_QUEUE_IDX;
> > >
> > > -#ifdef RTE_MACHINE_CPUFLAG_SSSE3
> > > - struct virtio_hw *hw = dev->data->dev_private;
> > > -#endif
> > > struct virtnet_tx *txvq;
> > > struct virtqueue *vq;
> > > uint16_t tx_free_thresh;
> > > @@ -511,13 +500,14 @@ virtio_dev_tx_queue_setup(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> > > }
> > >
> > > #ifdef RTE_MACHINE_CPUFLAG_SSSE3
> > > + struct virtio_hw *hw = dev->data->dev_private;
> >
> > I'd suggest to move above declaration to ...
> >
> > > /* Use simple rx/tx func if single segment and no offloads */
> > > if ((tx_conf->txq_flags & VIRTIO_SIMPLE_FLAGS) == VIRTIO_SIMPLE_FLAGS &&
> > > !vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF)) {
> >
> > here: we should try to avoid declaring vars in the middle of a code block.
>
> Next patch in this series, moving all rxtx handler selection code to
> separate function(virtio_update_rxtx_handler()) where declaration comes
> as first line in the function.i.e the comment is taken care of in the
> series.
Yes, I saw that. But in principle, each patch is atomic: it's not a
good idea/practice to introduce issues in path A and then fix it in
path B.
--yliu
