From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79075A04FB for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 09:17:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62FCB2A66; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 09:17:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com (mail-wr1-f65.google.com [209.85.221.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B49EC2986 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 09:17:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id t18so20029346wru.6 for ; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 00:17:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind.com; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=PbOOx6LY2s7T+mOATuLNz/NnH2ly4DRH5z6K6Gh9bKk=; b=d4YAKtZxp1IEwk0MAIUbMsIokVWYm9hIr+HhXdwBA9c5vI9eyii7WSiVdrRmyS17PU /62yUR15KPhEX8tPlq5hRbExT0txqFRPn+KmEXosk8RbGrkSYLKlCtbPPWGy1LJ7GkBz cP8yNUO2y4myB7yCEI4mmNl9i/7iPcPRLSZgoUKp6wr/CUBitwz5ejFaCQk4cg2SctzU K8hMBZulIkotxcJ+bmeDQk37xfjwkznlCmEhB9QbjZi+/+c62X512gTDjKyz+qQm7U/o gK6M773smjutrJPqtwuvjmu+HnBnZtDa9ZQacwzW0YSJVvnSOR/amssgWkR5KUuKgqsT Rfeg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=PbOOx6LY2s7T+mOATuLNz/NnH2ly4DRH5z6K6Gh9bKk=; b=Wq2iuhY7f0pcyXp+tQtCx2+3Djr/01j04OGzfQABHHpIUzwKfjPOY/oRtWuBFNSmqI 2dDVPwmNbOrXiSpWNUuXEupwDOaPen5hX9rpCyE1ZAWQftmqK3mGqS+ru1Kq94B1InME mmDcToXxcs4tbGGiJ29roXXTCEmmkg7dzPHD3Bbzje4DI7m4DLYC0/wWFgQz9+GFR8h9 UBmTMsUsppW63lxA/huGbS+918FfgCyfBw+REPwpM0YbRHYxDzevBMRMFvSFqp5JlDyb ydVnAY28luSC4zB/QUMp78sZwNK74ioUaPsnoPJYqJ5zlKv3VS/+Ulj8S+kQf4QmfAZB JXFw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531DpSt6nisK9oeL9mQ9EazC+j5Al8nWqXNrl3fHcTDpJNSsGPCX pbH4upMnqt83G95N4sQy6MQV0g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy8nBz3ifmmOC7g2HIpOneAYjF206l0uyIFLEpNKjNiWrGpsS4JFqCGCrYw3w5fTAMGVlkNSw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:ee47:: with SMTP id w7mr2749148wro.171.1591687050386; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 00:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 6wind.com (2a01cb0c0005a600345636f7e65ed1a0.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb0c:5:a600:3456:36f7:e65e:d1a0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d24sm1823858wmb.45.2020.06.09.00.17.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 09 Jun 2020 00:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 09:17:29 +0200 From: Olivier Matz To: Xiaolong Ye Cc: Konstantin Ananyev , Thomas Monjalon , dev@dpdk.org, haiyue.wang@intel.com, stable@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20200609071729.GP12564@platinum> References: <20200609052955.59196-1-xiaolong.ye@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200609052955.59196-1-xiaolong.ye@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] mbuf: remove unused next member X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" Hi Xialong, On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 01:29:55PM +0800, Xiaolong Ye wrote: > TAILQ_ENTRY next is not needed in struct mbuf_dynfield_elt and > mbuf_dynflag_elt, since they are actually chained by rte_tailq_entry's > next field when calling TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(mbuf_dynfield/dynflag_list, te, > next). > > Fixes: 4958ca3a443a ("mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags") > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > Signed-off-by: Xiaolong Ye Good catch, I forgot to remove this field which was used in former implementations. Thanks! I suggest to update the title to highlight it's about dynamic mbuf: mbuf: remove unused next member in dyn flag/field Apart from this: Acked-by: Olivier Matz > --- > > I found this issue when reading the mbuf dynfiled/dynflag feature code, > mbuf_autotest is passed with this change, though I may miss something or > this filed has some special design purpose, please correct me if I am > wrong. > > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c > index d6931f847..953e3ec31 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c > @@ -19,7 +19,6 @@ > #define RTE_MBUF_DYN_MZNAME "rte_mbuf_dyn" > > struct mbuf_dynfield_elt { > - TAILQ_ENTRY(mbuf_dynfield_elt) next; > struct rte_mbuf_dynfield params; > size_t offset; > }; > @@ -31,7 +30,6 @@ static struct rte_tailq_elem mbuf_dynfield_tailq = { > EAL_REGISTER_TAILQ(mbuf_dynfield_tailq); > > struct mbuf_dynflag_elt { > - TAILQ_ENTRY(mbuf_dynflag_elt) next; > struct rte_mbuf_dynflag params; > unsigned int bitnum; > }; > -- > 2.17.1 >