> -----Original Message----- > From: Ananyev, Konstantin [mailto:konstantin.ananyev at intel.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 8:45 AM > To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.com>; Adrien > Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com>; Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang at > intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: remove inconsistent assert statements >... > But as I said, if everyone are that desperate about symmetry, we can just > create a new public function: > > void > rte_mbuf_raw_free(stuct rte_mbuf *m) > { > if (rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(m, -1) == 0) > __rte_mbuf_raw_free(m); > }
Well, if you're going to do that, let's recognize that rte_mbuf_raw_free() was misnamed: it doesn't free an mbuf, it returns an mbuf that's already free back to the pool. So instead of "__rte_mbuf_raw_free", I'd call it "rte_mbuf_raw_release". Logically I like this solution, as I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that a free mbuf might sometimes have refcnt set to one. On the other hand, if mbufs can often be freed without touching refcnt, that could be a big win that might persuade me to accept being uncomfortable. -don provan dprovan at bivio.net
