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.
