On 06/29/2016 06:02 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
> On 6/29/16, 11:00 AM, "dev on behalf of Bruce Richardson" dpdk.org on behalf of bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:55:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 2016-06-29 14:55, Bruce Richardson:
The
2016-06-29 14:55, Bruce Richardson:
> The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what their
> names suggested. The free_count function actually returned the number of
> elements that were allocated from the pool, not the number unallocated as
> the name implied.
>
> Fix this by
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:55:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-06-29 14:55, Bruce Richardson:
> > The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what their
> > names suggested. The free_count function actually returned the number of
> > elements that were allocated from the
> -Original Message-
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 5:05 PM
> To: Wiles, Keith ; Richardson, Bruce
> ; Thomas Monjalon 6wind.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mempool: rename
On 6/29/16, 11:00 AM, "dev on behalf of Bruce Richardson" wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:55:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 2016-06-29 14:55, Bruce Richardson:
>> > The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what their
>> > names suggested. The free_count function
The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what their
names suggested. The free_count function actually returned the number of
elements that were allocated from the pool, not the number unallocated as
the name implied.
Fix this by introducing two new functions to replace the old
6 matches
Mail list logo
