| Message ID | CAPwdgqjrg__wZZKRzZ+DVBV6JjJEnHbq_nVV0+Hr0p9kdA_55A@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
Right now I realized that I did not respect the 79 characters width limit on the description. Should I resend the path? Thank you very much. On 10 November 2015 at 23:42, Mauricio Vásquez < mauricio.vasquezbernal@studenti.polito.it> wrote: > Although netdev does explicit locking, it is only valid from the ovs > perspective, then only the ring ends used by ovs should be declared as > single producer / single consumer. > The other ends that are used by the application should be declared as > multiple producer / multiple consumer that is the most general case. > > Signed-off-by: Mauricio Vasquez B < > mauricio.vasquezbernal@studenti.polito.it> > --- > lib/netdev-dpdk.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c > index 4658416..e3a0771 100644 > --- a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c > +++ b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c > @@ -1931,9 +1931,9 @@ dpdk_ring_create(const char dev_name[], unsigned int > port_no, > return -err; > } > > - /* Create single consumer/producer rings, netdev does explicit > locking. */ > + /* Create single producer tx ring, netdev does explicit locking. */ > ivshmem->cring_tx = rte_ring_create(ring_name, DPDK_RING_SIZE, > SOCKET0, > - RING_F_SP_ENQ | RING_F_SC_DEQ); > + RING_F_SP_ENQ); > if (ivshmem->cring_tx == NULL) { > rte_free(ivshmem); > return ENOMEM; > @@ -1944,9 +1944,9 @@ dpdk_ring_create(const char dev_name[], unsigned int > port_no, > return -err; > } > > - /* Create single consumer/producer rings, netdev does explicit > locking. */ > + /* Create single consumer rx ring, netdev does explicit locking. */ > ivshmem->cring_rx = rte_ring_create(ring_name, DPDK_RING_SIZE, > SOCKET0, > - RING_F_SP_ENQ | RING_F_SC_DEQ); > + RING_F_SC_DEQ); > if (ivshmem->cring_rx == NULL) { > rte_free(ivshmem); > return ENOMEM; > -- > 1.9.1 >
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:10:06AM +0100, Mauricio Vásquez wrote: > Right now I realized that I did not respect the 79 characters width limit > on > the description. > > Should I resend the path? > > Thank you very much. It looks to me like your patch is word-wrapped. That is a more serious issue than the width of the commit message, because it makes it difficult to apply the patch. I would re-send it with "git send-email" or with an email client that does not word wrap.
diff --git a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c index 4658416..e3a0771 100644 --- a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c +++ b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c @@ -1931,9 +1931,9 @@ dpdk_ring_create(const char dev_name[], unsigned int port_no, return -err; } - /* Create single consumer/producer rings, netdev does explicit locking. */ + /* Create single producer tx ring, netdev does explicit locking. */ ivshmem->cring_tx = rte_ring_create(ring_name, DPDK_RING_SIZE, SOCKET0, - RING_F_SP_ENQ | RING_F_SC_DEQ); + RING_F_SP_ENQ); if (ivshmem->cring_tx == NULL) {