On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 at 15:36, Eelco Chaudron <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > > > + if (policer) { > > + ovsrcu_postpone__((void (*)(void *)) > > dpdk_qos_ingress_policer_destruct, > > + policer); > > Could this use ovsrcu_postpone() directly? The types > match: dpdk_qos_ingress_policer_destruct() takes a > 'struct dpdk_qos_ingress_policer *' and 'policer' is > the same type.
Indeed. This is probably a leftover of some experiment I did. I can probably call free() like in original code, I'll double check. > > diff --git a/lib/netdev-dpdk-common.h b/lib/netdev-dpdk-common.h > > [...] > > > +void dpdk_qos_ingress_policer_destruct(struct dpdk_qos_ingress_policer *); > > +int dpdk_qos_ingress_policer_run(struct dpdk_qos_ingress_policer *policer, > > Per the coding style, parameter names can be omitted > from prototypes when the type already makes the purpose > clear. For instance 'policer' here, 'common' below, and > similar struct pointer parameters throughout this move. > Also true for earlier patches. Well, I just moved code. On the other hand, every time I submit a patch with "omitted" names, I get Ilya asking me to add explicit names :-). So please, give me an explicit list of things to adjust, else I prefer to leave as is. -- David Marchand _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
