On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 09:01:14PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
...
> > +
> > + switch (count % 4) {
> > + while (idx != count) {
> > + case 0:
> > + RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(mbufs[idx]) == 0);
> > + rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(mbufs[idx], 1);
> > + rte_pktmbuf_reset(mbufs[idx]);
> > + idx++;
> > + case 3:
> > + RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(mbufs[idx]) == 0);
> > + rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(mbufs[idx], 1);
> > + rte_pktmbuf_reset(mbufs[idx]);
> > + idx++;
> > + case 2:
> > + RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(mbufs[idx]) == 0);
> > + rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(mbufs[idx], 1);
> > + rte_pktmbuf_reset(mbufs[idx]);
> > + idx++;
> > + case 1:
> > + RTE_MBUF_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(mbufs[idx]) == 0);
> > + rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(mbufs[idx], 1);
> > + rte_pktmbuf_reset(mbufs[idx]);
> > + idx++;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> This is weird. Why not just use Duff's device in a more normal manner.
Duff's device; interesting and good to know. Thanks.
--yliu
