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 838A9A04FA; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 07:44:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D299D29D6; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 07:44:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF432986; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 07:44:34 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: pNhJQdh/McDKDFpBmG8Sk0gFWUzU8UtxCqsD1MHnZ2Momb9/8YGJRC5+FtXUurt82Ft7EA5OXs k87FEGBjPHLQ== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Jun 2020 22:44:33 -0700 IronPort-SDR: brMg6ku8TjwfuArnh7XVlCjd8C/IIbEwwFJqowV+LrmL796yj5+H6XexvXmT94y+0J0t3HnNDf ziBqj2pyWp2g== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,490,1583222400"; d="scan'208";a="306068799" Received: from dpdk_yexl_af_xdp.sh.intel.com ([10.67.119.201]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Jun 2020 22:44:31 -0700 From: Xiaolong Ye To: Olivier Matz , Konstantin Ananyev , Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev@dpdk.org, haiyue.wang@intel.com, Xiaolong Ye , stable@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:29:55 +0800 Message-Id: <20200609052955.59196-1-xiaolong.ye@intel.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: remove unused next member X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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 --- 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