On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:17:53 +0800
Huawei Xie <huawei.xie at intel.com> wrote:
> +
> + rc = rte_mempool_get_bulk(pool, (void **)mbufs, count);
> + if (unlikely(rc))
> + return rc;
> +
> + switch (count % 4) {
> + case 0: while (idx != count) {
> + 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;
> +}
Since function will not work if count can not be 0 (otherwise
rte_mempool_get_bulk will fail),
why not:
1. Document that assumption
2. Use that assumption to speed up code.
switch(count % 4) {
do {
case 0:
...
case 1:
...
} while (idx != count);
}
Also you really need to add a big block comment about this loop, to explain
what it does and why.
