[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: remove inconsistent assert statements
Thomas Monjalon
thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com
Thu Jun 9 17:27:37 CEST 2016
2016-06-09 13:21, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> > Today:
> >
> > /* allowed */
> > m = rte_pktmbuf_alloc();
> > rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
> >
> > /* not allowed */
> > m = rte_mbuf_raw_alloc();
> > __rte_mbuf_raw_free(m);
> >
> > /* we should do instead (strange): */
> > m = rte_mbuf_raw_alloc();
> > rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
> >
> > What I suggest to have:
> >
> > /* allowed, no change */
> > m = rte_pktmbuf_alloc();
> > rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
> >
> > /* allowed, these functions would be symetrical */
> > m = rte_mbuf_raw_alloc();
> > rte_mbuf_raw_free(m);
> >
> > /* not allowed, m->refcnt is uninitialized */
> > m = rte_mbuf_raw_alloc();
> > rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
>
> Hmm, and what it will buy us (except of symmetry)?
API consistency is important.
It is a matter of making our users confident in DPDK.
I would not like to use a library where I need to check in the doc
for each function because I don't remember and I'm not confident
that the function fish() do some fishing or hunting.
More information about the dev
mailing list