[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 01/11] examples/l3fwd: add framework for event device

[Ananyev, Konstantin]

> >> +struct l3fwd_event_resources {
> >> +	uint8_t sched_type;
> >> +	uint8_t enabled;
> >> +	uint8_t nb_args;
> >> +	char **args;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static inline struct l3fwd_event_resources *
> >> +l3fwd_get_eventdev_rsrc(void)
> >> +{
> >> +	static const char name[RTE_MEMZONE_NAMESIZE] =
> >"l3fwd_event_rsrc";
> >> +	const struct rte_memzone *mz;
> >> +
> >> +	mz = rte_memzone_lookup(name);
> >> +
> >> +	if (mz != NULL)
> >> +		return mz->addr;
> >> +
> >> +	mz = rte_memzone_reserve(name, sizeof(struct
> >l3fwd_event_resources),
> >> +				 0, 0);
> >> +	if (mz != NULL) {
> >> +		memset(mz->addr, 0, sizeof(struct
> >l3fwd_event_resources));
> >> +		return mz->addr;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "Unable to allocate memory for
> >eventdev cfg\n");
> >> +
> >> +	return NULL;
> >> +}
> >
> >Does this function really need to be inline?
> >It wouldn't be fast anyway.
> >Another question - do you really need memzone here?
> >Wouldn't just rte_malloc() be enough?
> 
> Will remove inline in next version.
> rte_malloc would call for a global variable which I'm
> trying to avoid.

If you plan to move that function into .c file,
you don't need a global var.  it could be static local one.

> I don't think there is any harm in using
> named memzone.

I don't see any harm, though malloc+var will be faster I think.
Though up to you - no strong opinion here.