On Monday 04 September 2017 08:16 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote: > On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 08:03:53PM +0530, santosh wrote: >> >> On Monday 04 September 2017 07:52 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:37:38AM +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote: >>>> xmem_size and xmem_usage need to know the status of mp->flag. >>>> Following patch will make use of that. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla <santosh.shu...@caviumnetworks.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/net/xenvirt/rte_mempool_gntalloc.c | 5 +++-- >>>> lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c | 10 ++++++---- >>>> lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h | 8 ++++++-- >>>> test/test/test_mempool.c | 4 ++-- >>>> 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/xenvirt/rte_mempool_gntalloc.c >>>> b/drivers/net/xenvirt/rte_mempool_gntalloc.c >>>> index 73e82f808..ee0bda459 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/net/xenvirt/rte_mempool_gntalloc.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/xenvirt/rte_mempool_gntalloc.c >>>> @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ _create_mempool(const char *name, unsigned elt_num, >>>> unsigned elt_size, >>>> pg_shift = rte_bsf32(pg_sz); >>>> >>>> rte_mempool_calc_obj_size(elt_size, flags, &objsz); >>>> - sz = rte_mempool_xmem_size(elt_num, objsz.total_size, pg_shift); >>>> + sz = rte_mempool_xmem_size(elt_num, objsz.total_size, pg_shift, NULL); >>>> pg_num = sz >> pg_shift; >>>> >>>> pa_arr = calloc(pg_num, sizeof(pa_arr[0])); >>> What is the meaning of passing NULL to rte_mempool_xmem_size()? >>> Does it mean that flags are ignored? >> Yes that mean flags are ignored. > But the flags change the return value of rte_mempool_xmem_size(), right?
no, It won't change. > So, correct me if I'm wrong, but if we don't pass the proper flags, the > returned value won't be the one we expect. passing flag value other than MEMPOOL_F_POOL_BLK_SZ_ALIGNED, wont impact return value. >>> Wouldn't it be better to pass the mempool flags instead of the mempool >>> pointer? >> Keeping mempool as param rather flag useful in case user want to do/refer >> more >> thing in future for xmem_size/usage() api. Otherwise he has append one more >> param >> to api and send out deprecation notice.. Btw, its const param so won;t hurt >> right? >> >> However if you still want to restrict param to mp->flags then pl. suggest. >> >> Thanks. >> >>
