> -----Original Message----- > From: Eelco Chaudron <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 9:35 AM > To: Amber, Kumar <[email protected]> > Cc: Ferriter, Cian <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Van Haaren, Harry > <[email protected]>; Stokes, Ian <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [v6 00/11] MFEX Infrastructure + Optimizations > > > > On 6 Jul 2021, at 17:06, Amber, Kumar wrote: > > > Hi Eelco , > > > > > > Here is the diff vor v6 vs v5 : > > > > Patch 1 : > > > > diff --git a/lib/dpif-netdev-private-extract.c > > b/lib/dpif-netdev-private-extract.c > > index 1aebf3656d..4987d628a4 100644 > > --- a/lib/dpif-netdev-private-extract.c > > +++ b/lib/dpif-netdev-private-extract.c > > @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ dpif_miniflow_extract_autovalidator(struct > dp_packet_batch *packets, > > uint32_t keys_size, odp_port_t in_port, > > struct dp_netdev_pmd_thread > > *pmd_handle) > > { > > - const size_t cnt = dp_packet_batch_size(packets); > > + const uint32_t cnt = dp_packet_batch_size(packets); > > uint16_t good_l2_5_ofs[NETDEV_MAX_BURST]; > > uint16_t good_l3_ofs[NETDEV_MAX_BURST]; > > uint16_t good_l4_ofs[NETDEV_MAX_BURST]; > > @@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ dpif_miniflow_extract_autovalidator(struct > dp_packet_batch *packets, > > atomic_uintptr_t *pmd_func = (void *)&pmd->miniflow_extract_opt; > > atomic_store_relaxed(pmd_func, (uintptr_t) default_func); > > VLOG_ERR("Invalid key size supplied, Key_size: %d less than" > > - "batch_size: %ld", keys_size, cnt); > > + "batch_size: %d", keys_size, cnt); > > What was the reason for changing this size_t to uint32_t? Is see other > instances > where %ld is used for logging? > And other functions like dp_netdev_run_meter() have it as a size_t?
The reason to change this is because 32-bit builds were breaking due to incorrect format-specifier in the printf. Root cause is because size_t requires different printf format specifier based on 32 or 64 bit arch. (As you likely know, size_t is to describe objects in memory, or the return of sizeof operator. Because 32-bit and 64-bit can have different amounts of memory, size_t can be "unsigned int" or "unsigned long long"). It does not make sense to me to use a type of variable that changes width based on architecture to count batch size (a value from 0 to 32). Simplicity and obvious-ness is nice, and a uint32_t is always exactly what you read it to be, and %d will always be correct for uint32_t regardless of 32 or 64 bit. We should not change this back to the more complex and error-prone "size_t", uint32_t is better. <snip> _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
