Maybe close should call stop implictely to avoid redundancy ? Term => Close Close => Stop
On 10/16/2015 01:59 PM, Maxim Uvarov wrote: > Petri sent a patch for api which says that pktio has to be stopped. > > I think you also need to send stop before close in that patch. > > Maxim. > > On 10/14/2015 10:53, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin wrote: >> There at still 3 loops with the same = 1, <=PKTIO_ENTRIES in the packet_io.c >> file. >> Can we keep this patch this way and then send a new patch that fixes all >> these loops at once? >> >> Nicolas >> >> On 10/14/2015 09:52 AM, Maxim Uvarov wrote: >>> On 10/14/2015 10:21, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin wrote: >>>> On 10/14/2015 08:48 AM, Maxim Uvarov wrote: >>>>> On 10/13/2015 20:05, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin wrote: >>>>>> Right now, pktio_term calls term on all pktio type but >>>>>> some pktio might still be be opened. Although the user should >>>>>> probably close its pktio before termintating the application, >>>>>> it is safer to iterate on all pktio and close them in the >>>>>> pktio_term function. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin <[email protected]> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> platform/linux-generic/odp_packet_io.c | 11 ++++++----- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/platform/linux-generic/odp_packet_io.c >>>>>> b/platform/linux-generic/odp_packet_io.c >>>>>> index fa0817a..f262cb6 100644 >>>>>> --- a/platform/linux-generic/odp_packet_io.c >>>>>> +++ b/platform/linux-generic/odp_packet_io.c >>>>>> @@ -91,6 +91,12 @@ int odp_pktio_term_global(void) >>>>>> int id; >>>>>> int pktio_if; >>>>>> + for (id = 1; id <= ODP_CONFIG_PKTIO_ENTRIES; ++id) { >>>>>> + pktio_entry = &pktio_tbl->entries[id - 1]; >>>>>> + odp_pktio_close(pktio_entry->s.handle); >>>>>> + odp_queue_destroy(pktio_entry->s.outq_default); >>>>>> + } >>>>> Why we have here and bellow id = 1, then subtract 1 to get entry? >>>>> Wouldn't it better: >>>>> for (id = 0; id < ODP_CONFIG_PKTIO_ENTRIES; ++id) { >>>>> pktio_entry = &pktio_tbl->entries[id]; >>>>> >>>>> ? >>>> I'm not really sure why. >>>> I didn't want to update the code in the same patch so I kept it as it was. >>>> Maybe it's a remain from some time where id 0 was ODP_PKTIO_INVALID or >>>> something? >>>> >>>> Nicolas >>>> >>> Yes, it looks like 0 was invalid some tome ago. >>> >>> Maxim. > _______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
