From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456185A72
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 06:20:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23])
 by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2015 21:20:51 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,444,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="863637171"
Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49])
 by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2015 21:20:51 -0800
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:21:22 +0800
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Message-ID: <20151218052122.GK29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1450049754-33635-1-git-send-email-huawei.xie@intel.com>
 <1450055682-51953-1-git-send-email-huawei.xie@intel.com>
 <1450055682-51953-2-git-send-email-huawei.xie@intel.com>
 <20151217210114.534a7561@xeon-e3>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151217210114.534a7561@xeon-e3>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] mbuf: provide rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk
 API
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 05:20:53 -0000

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 09:01:14PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
...
> > +
> > +	switch (count % 4) {
> > +	while (idx != count) {
> > +		case 0:
> > +			RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(mbufs[idx]) == 0);
> > +			rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(mbufs[idx], 1);
> > +			rte_pktmbuf_reset(mbufs[idx]);
> > +			idx++;
> > +		case 3:
> > +			RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(mbufs[idx]) == 0);
> > +			rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(mbufs[idx], 1);
> > +			rte_pktmbuf_reset(mbufs[idx]);
> > +			idx++;
> > +		case 2:
> > +			RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(mbufs[idx]) == 0);
> > +			rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(mbufs[idx], 1);
> > +			rte_pktmbuf_reset(mbufs[idx]);
> > +			idx++;
> > +		case 1:
> > +			RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(mbufs[idx]) == 0);
> > +			rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(mbufs[idx], 1);
> > +			rte_pktmbuf_reset(mbufs[idx]);
> > +			idx++;
> > +	}
> > +	}
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> This is weird. Why not just use Duff's device in a more normal manner.

Duff's device; interesting and good to know. Thanks.

	--yliu