From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DAA5585 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 04:08:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2016 19:08:27 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,376,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="12370656" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2016 19:08:25 -0700 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:09:03 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: "Yang, Zhiyong" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Van Haaren, Harry" , "thomas.monjalon@6wind.com" , "pmatilai@redhat.com" Message-ID: <20160922020903.GG23158@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1474364205-111569-2-git-send-email-zhiyong.yang@intel.com> <1474452355-57106-1-git-send-email-zhiyong.yang@intel.com> <1474452355-57106-3-git-send-email-zhiyong.yang@intel.com> <20160921105709.GE23158@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/2] net/vhost: add pmd xstats X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 02:08:28 -0000 On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:42:14AM +0000, Yang, Zhiyong wrote: > hi, yuanhan: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 6:57 PM > > To: Yang, Zhiyong > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Van Haaren, Harry ; > > thomas.monjalon@6wind.com; pmatilai@redhat.com > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] net/vhost: add pmd xstats > > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 06:05:55PM +0800, Zhiyong Yang wrote: > > > +static inline void > > > +vhost_count_multicast_broadcast(struct vhost_queue *vq, > > > + struct rte_mbuf **bufs, > > > + uint16_t count) > > > > Hmm.. why not just passing "struct rte_mbuf *mbuf"? > > > > Passing "struct rte_mbuf *mbuf" can reduce one parameter. But the function is small > and frequently invoked. So, I define it as the inline function, I think the two > types of definitions should have the same performance for inline function. > Should I modify it in next patch? Yes, since it's simpler. Besides, "count" doesn't make sense, judging that you just do one mbuf counting here. --yliu