On 06/30/2016 03:00 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-06-29 17:27, Bruce Richardson:
>> Fix this by introducing two new functions to replace the old ones,
>> * rte_mempool_avail_count to replace rte_mempool_count
>> * rte_mempool_in_use_count to replace rte_mempool_free_count
>
> This patch needs t
2016-06-29 17:27, Bruce Richardson:
> Fix this by introducing two new functions to replace the old ones,
> * rte_mempool_avail_count to replace rte_mempool_count
> * rte_mempool_in_use_count to replace rte_mempool_free_count
This patch needs to be rebased please.
> --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_me
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 03:02:22PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 06/30/2016 03:00 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >2016-06-29 17:27, Bruce Richardson:
> >>Fix this by introducing two new functions to replace the old ones,
> >>* rte_mempool_avail_count to replace rte_mempool_count
> >>* rte_mempoo
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 02:00:16PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-06-29 17:27, Bruce Richardson:
> > Fix this by introducing two new functions to replace the old ones,
> > * rte_mempool_avail_count to replace rte_mempool_count
> > * rte_mempool_in_use_count to replace rte_mempool_free_count
>
+ Correct email for Thomas :-(
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:27:15PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what their
> names suggested. The free_count function actually returned the number of
> elements that were allocated from the pool, not th
The mempool_count and mempool_free_count behaved contrary to what their
names suggested. The free_count function actually returned the number of
elements that were allocated from the pool, not the number unallocated as
the name implied.
Fix this by introducing two new functions to replace the old
6 matches
Mail list logo
