[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] mbuf: cleanup rte_pktmbuf_lastseg(), fix atomic usage

[Ilya Matveychikov]

> On Nov 16, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz at 6wind.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 01:32:13PM +0400, Ilya Matveychikov wrote:
>> 
>>> On Nov 16, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Hanoch Haim (hhaim) <hhaim at cisco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Understood 
>>> 
>>> rte_mbuf_refcnt_update_blind() 
>>> 
>>> should be good., it will take care the RTE_MBUF_REFCNT_ATOMIC 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Why guys not to add just __rte_mbuf_refcnt_update() as a wrapper over
>> rte_atomic16_add_return() and use it in inside rte_mbuf_refcnt_update() and
>> rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg() as well?
>> 
> 
> Is there any other difference with rte_mbuf_refcnt_update_blind() except
> the function name?

No really, but my suggestion was not only about the name but to use such a
function inside rte_mbuf_refcnt_update() too. Also, that is common naming
scheme in Linux kernel — to add “__” prefix for for “lightweight” functions.

Anyway, IMO having a function will be better than having ifdef/else/endif
block.