From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com (mail-vc0-f182.google.com
 [209.85.220.182]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E254594E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  9 Jan 2015 15:38:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id hq12so3249524vcb.13
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 06:38:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
 :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=4cXhrkiCqfpzI3kIQOt+2Xt3Sqw9rQwN8qXxbW+UFvo=;
 b=ab2FYGJqqCGjt9+nBL55BSYp5sTfOAYvWbj2GGLXlscU4hiyBzIDTUqZlBIFO5ntqv
 bKF19HiRFNhRxLuA37a39NCj0FFJN4L+lIF4zex3ok00NhWY1KBX+91921mHFdjrKwZR
 +//gk15ZFN/pvAS7xk1EyC/zKWhM0tg2PjYrFq8Egc2GQ307ehLHVlZ1PfanDAf+ruJc
 6w/WDyu1NQw0JZdeYuZWmwMNbOqrs+JxziV1eg+ytF0CAPI1f3UonG6gUx6hqOogGiS0
 oQ+oWwk8L3d70CAjtbtIpSbOc88/O/x6tCDsPgvLHpLQmN8TpLF6qT0m5Y2x4GECZgqh
 3qSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnNQmAodEBkI4KeiL9Dsr2e6uEaFZJhxoT39jH2CnnE+caGtxnO6CH45IavQItqQE9SlG+e
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.139.68 with SMTP id qw4mr8258316vdb.70.1420814322837;
 Fri, 09 Jan 2015 06:38:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.96.225 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 06:38:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54AFE58E.50009@6wind.com>
References: <CAD+H9911EO_0J_GRt34j-ugOSqeJo-QobNYc_cMe+52kvXLEfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <54AFE58E.50009@6wind.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 14:38:42 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD+H993HzDWiANCu5kBSc+ru_4p0KFD9WRJDS50ks4AvLV_dNw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] ret_pktmbuf_pool_init problem with opaque_arg
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, 09 Jan 2015 14:38:43 -0000

Hi Olivier,



On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com> wrote:

> Hi Alejandro,
>
> On 01/09/2015 03:12 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> > Inside this function mbuf_data_room_size is set to a default value if
> > opaque_arg is null and it should be set to the value pointed by
> opaque_arg
> > if not null. Current implementation is using not the value but with the
> > pointer itself. I think this:
> >
> >         roomsz = (uint16_t)(uintptr_t)opaque_arg;
> >
> > should be something like this:
> >
> >         roomsz = *(uint16_t *)opaque_arg;
> >
>
> In this particular case, the integer value is stored in the pointer
> value: the pointer is not used as a pointer but as an integer. I agree
> it can be surprising, but I think the code is correct.
>
>
Likely there is a good reason for doing things this way but I can not see
the point.

And it will confuse the user.

Thanks and Regards


> Regards,
> Olivier
>