From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA671B4ED; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 16:47:17 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Nov 2018 07:47:16 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,295,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="254458117" Received: from fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.205]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Nov 2018 07:47:16 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx101.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.199) by fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 07:47:16 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx117.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.100]) by fmsmsx101.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.4]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 07:47:15 -0800 From: "Wiles, Keith" To: "Burakov, Anatoly" CC: dpdk-dev , "stable@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] malloc: fix duplicate mem event notification Thread-Index: AQHUh+7vxWmcCy20T0GIeOQ8DhE0xaVnXQ8AgAALx4CAAAMCgA== Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:47:15 +0000 Message-ID: <21758B66-053A-4E95-8AE9-9FB8EE7C81F1@intel.com> References: <55beddff-0c3a-63c0-e793-636265175c75@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <55beddff-0c3a-63c0-e793-636265175c75@intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.252.193.14] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <15DC2E60ABE0C946B779A23195D56052@intel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] malloc: fix duplicate mem event notification 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:47:18 -0000 > On Nov 29, 2018, at 9:36 AM, Burakov, Anatoly = wrote: >=20 > On 29-Nov-18 2:54 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote: >>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:21 AM, Anatoly Burakov wrote: >>>=20 >>> We already trigger a mem event notification inside the walk function, >>> no need to do it twice. >>>=20 >>> Fixes: f32c7c9de961 ("malloc: enable event callbacks for external memor= y") >>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org >>>=20 >>> Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov >>> --- >>> lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c | 4 ---- >>> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) >>>=20 >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c b/lib/librte_eal/common= /rte_malloc.c >>> index 0da5ad5e8..750a83c2c 100644 >>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c >>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_malloc.c >>> @@ -518,10 +518,6 @@ sync_memory(const char *heap_name, void *va_addr, = size_t len, bool attach) >>> rte_errno =3D -wa.result; >>> ret =3D -1; >>> } else { >>> - /* notify all subscribers that a new memory area was added */ >>> - if (attach) >>> - eal_memalloc_mem_event_notify(RTE_MEM_EVENT_ALLOC, >>> - va_addr, len); >>> ret =3D 0; >>> } >> This change leaves >> else { >> ret =3D 0; >> } >> Needs to be: >> else >> ret =3D 0; >=20 > Checkpatch disagrees :P Brackets are needed everywhere if at least one of= the branches is a multiline branch. No brackets needed only if all branche= s are one-line branches. >=20 > As a side note, I would also argue that we shouldn't leave bracket-less i= f statements altogether, because it makes for extra effort whenever a singl= e-line statement inevitably becomes a multiline one (e.g. could be as simpl= e as putting in a debug printf - i now have to add brackets everywhere...).= But that's a topic for another day :) Well it seems to be a very questionable formatting to leave the else with b= rackets in a single line style IMO. Also look at section 1.6.2 in DPDK coding style as it states something diff= erent. * Closing and opening braces go on the same line as the else keyword. * Braces that are not necessary should be left out. if (test) stmt; else if (bar) { =20 stmt; stmt; } else stmt; Note the last else here. Looking at this code it appears check patch is wro= ng here compared to the DPDK coding style. >=20 >>> unlock: >>> --=20 >>> 2.17.1 >> Regards, >> Keith >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Thanks, > Anatoly Regards, Keith