On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 01:32:13PM +0400, Ilya Matveychikov wrote: > > > On Nov 16, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Hanoch Haim (hhaim) <hh...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > Understood > > > > rte_mbuf_refcnt_update_blind() > > > > should be good., it will take care the RTE_MBUF_REFCNT_ATOMIC > > > > > Why guys not to add just __rte_mbuf_refcnt_update() as a wrapper over > rte_atomic16_add_return() and use it in inside rte_mbuf_refcnt_update() and > rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg() as well? >
Is there any other difference with rte_mbuf_refcnt_update_blind() except the function name?
