On 6/3/2016 1:28 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote: > > On 06/02/2016 03:27 PM, David Hunt wrote: >> Now that we're moving to an external mempoool handler, which >> uses a void *pool_data as a pointer to the pool data, remove the >> unneeded ring pointer from the mempool struct. >> >> Signed-off-by: David Hunt <david.hunt at intel.com> >> --- >> app/test/test_mempool_perf.c | 1 - >> lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h | 1 - >> 2 files changed, 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/app/test/test_mempool_perf.c b/app/test/test_mempool_perf.c >> index cdc02a0..091c1df 100644 >> --- a/app/test/test_mempool_perf.c >> +++ b/app/test/test_mempool_perf.c >> @@ -161,7 +161,6 @@ per_lcore_mempool_test(__attribute__((unused)) void *arg) >> n_get_bulk); >> if (unlikely(ret < 0)) { >> rte_mempool_dump(stdout, mp); >> - rte_ring_dump(stdout, mp->ring); >> /* in this case, objects are lost... */ >> return -1; >> } >> diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h >> b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h >> index a6b28b0..c33eeb8 100644 >> --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h >> +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h >> @@ -204,7 +204,6 @@ struct rte_mempool_memhdr { >> */ >> struct rte_mempool { >> char name[RTE_MEMPOOL_NAMESIZE]; /**< Name of mempool. */ >> - struct rte_ring *ring; /**< Ring to store objects. */ >> union { >> void *pool_data; /**< Ring or pool to store objects */ >> uint64_t pool_id; /**< External mempool identifier */ >> > Sorry if I missed it in previous discussions, but I don't really > see the point of having this in a separate commit, as the goal > of the previous commit is to replace the ring by configurable ops. > > Moreover, after applying only the previous commit, the > call to rte_ring_dump(stdout, mp->ring) would probably crash > sine ring is NULL. > > I think this comment also applies to the next commit. Splitting > between functionalities is good, but in this case I think the 3 > commits are linked together, and it should not break compilation > or tests to facilitate the git bisect. > > > Regards, > Olivier
Yes. Originally there was a lot of discussion to split out the bigger patch, which I did, and it was easier to review, but I think that now we're (very) close to final revision, I can merge those three back into one. Thanks, Dave.