[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: remove unused next member

2020-06-08 Thread Xiaolong Ye
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

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: remove unused next member

2020-06-09 Thread Olivier Matz
Hi Xialong, On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 01:29:55PM +0800, Xiaolong Ye wrote: > 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). >

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: remove unused next member

2020-06-09 Thread Ye Xiaolong
On 06/09, Olivier Matz wrote: >Hi Xialong, > >On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 01:29:55PM +0800, Xiaolong Ye wrote: >> 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_dy

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: remove unused next member

2020-06-09 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:15:33 +0800 Ye Xiaolong wrote: > On 06/09, Olivier Matz wrote: > >Hi Xialong, > > > >On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 01:29:55PM +0800, Xiaolong Ye wrote: > >> TAILQ_ENTRY next is not needed in struct mbuf_dynfield_elt and > >> mbuf_dynflag_elt, since they are actually chained by r

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: remove unused next member

2020-06-09 Thread Ye Xiaolong
On 06/09, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:15:33 +0800 >Ye Xiaolong wrote: > >> On 06/09, Olivier Matz wrote: >> >Hi Xialong, >> > >> >On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 01:29:55PM +0800, Xiaolong Ye wrote: >> >> TAILQ_ENTRY next is not needed in struct mbuf_dynfield_elt and >> >> mbuf_dynfl