TAILQ_ENTRY next is not needed in struct mbuf_dynfield_elt and
mbuf_dynflag_elt, since they are actually chained by rte_tailq_entry's
next field when calling TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(mbuf_dynfield/dynflag_list, te,
next).
Fixes: 4958ca3a443a ("mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags")
Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong...@intel.com>
---
I found this issue when reading the mbuf dynfiled/dynflag feature code,
mbuf_autotest is passed with this change, though I may miss something or
this filed has some special design purpose, please correct me if I am
wrong.
lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c
index d6931f847..953e3ec31 100644
--- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c
+++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c
@@ -19,7 +19,6 @@
#define RTE_MBUF_DYN_MZNAME "rte_mbuf_dyn"
struct mbuf_dynfield_elt {
- TAILQ_ENTRY(mbuf_dynfield_elt) next;
struct rte_mbuf_dynfield params;
size_t offset;
};
@@ -31,7 +30,6 @@ static struct rte_tailq_elem mbuf_dynfield_tailq = {
EAL_REGISTER_TAILQ(mbuf_dynfield_tailq);
struct mbuf_dynflag_elt {
- TAILQ_ENTRY(mbuf_dynflag_elt) next;
struct rte_mbuf_dynflag params;
unsigned int bitnum;
};
--
2.17.1
