Hi Thomas, Please read http://dpdk.org/dev#send for submission guidelines. >
I did when I was figuring out how to submit the patch, but possible I'm missing something on the tools to get it to include the commit comment correctly. A description of why you do it would be welcome in the commit log. > How much are you looking for here? I thought replacing an O(n^2) algorithm with qsort() was fairly self-evident. Less code and take advantage of standard library code that is faster. I get it in the general case. Just didn't seem necessary for this one. > > +static int > > +cmp_physaddr(const void *a, const void *b) > > +{ > > +#ifndef RTE_ARCH_PPC_64 > > + const struct hugepage_file *p1 = (const struct hugepage_file *)a; > > + const struct hugepage_file *p2 = (const struct hugepage_file *)b; > > +#else > > + // PowerPC needs memory sorted in reverse order from x86 > > Comments shall be C-style (/* */). > Single line comments ('//') have been part of the C standard since C99. Is DPDK following C89 or is this just a style thing? If it is a style thing, a link to a page with the rubric would be helpful. I didn't see one on the submission guidelines. > > + const struct hugepage_file *p1 = (const struct hugepage_file *)b; > > + const struct hugepage_file *p2 = (const struct hugepage_file *)a; > > +#endif > > + if (p1->physaddr < p2->physaddr) > > + return -1; > > + else if (p1->physaddr > p2->physaddr) > > + return 1; > > + else > > + return 0; > > +} > > One of the goal of EAL is to avoid #ifdef. > So that function would probably be better located in > lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/* with different implemenations > depending of the architecture. > Hmm... I was following the approach already used in the module. See map_all_hugepages(), remap_all_hugepages(). Regards, Jay