On 10.07.2018 17:48, Vishal Deep Ajmera wrote: >> >> This is potentially dangerous from the future modifications and hard to read >> for >> reviewer/person who tries to understand how it works. >> >> Current implementation will fail if someone will change the logic of >> 'DP_PACKET_BATCH_REFILL_FOR_EACH', for example. >> >> The key point is that 'DP_PACKET_BATCH_REFILL_FOR_EACH' and >> 'dp_packet_batch_refill' manipulates with the batch size in a hidden from the >> end user manner. Using of the 'packets_->count' directly requires knowledge >> of >> how refilling works internally, but these functions was intended to hide >> internals >> of batch manipulations. >> >> Also, as I understand, you're storing 'map_cnt' for each missed packet. >> So, why not just use 'n_missed' for that purpose? >> > > map_cnt keeps count of not just the emc miss packet but also all subsequent > packets (with emc hit) after one emc miss.
Yes. But we're talking about replacing 'packets_->count' with 'n_missed'. Not about 'map_cnt'. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
