[dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/virtio-user: drop attribute "unused" for memory callback

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 11/21/2019 12:09 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 21-Nov-19 8:58 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 11/21/2019 12:55 AM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/19/19 8:12 AM, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>>>> The "addr" param has been used since the event callbacks are enabled
>>>> for external memory. So the "__rte_unused" should be dropped.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, slightly refine the coding style by consistently assuming
>>>> tabs are 8 characters.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: f32c7c9de961 ("malloc: enable event callbacks for external memory")
>>>> Cc: stable at dpdk.org
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie at intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/net/virtio/virtio_user/virtio_user_dev.c | 6 +++---
>>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_user/virtio_user_dev.c b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_user/virtio_user_dev.c
>>>> index a4400e772..ea016e85d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_user/virtio_user_dev.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_user/virtio_user_dev.c
>>>> @@ -315,9 +315,9 @@ virtio_user_fill_intr_handle(struct virtio_user_dev *dev)
>>>>   
>>>>   static void
>>>>   virtio_user_mem_event_cb(enum rte_mem_event type __rte_unused,
>>>> -						 const void *addr __rte_unused,
>>>> -						 size_t len __rte_unused,
>>>> -						 void *arg)
>>>> +			 const void *addr,
>>>> +			 size_t len __rte_unused,
>>>> +			 void *arg)
>>>>   {
>>>>   	struct virtio_user_dev *dev = arg;
>>>>   	struct rte_memseg_list *msl;
>>>>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com>
>>>
>>> David or Ferruh, could you pick it directly?
>>> I don't plan to prepare a branch as I have this single patch for next
>>> -rc.
>>
>> I can get it, but can you please confirm that it is safe to go to rc4, since
>> already missed rc3?
>> Also can you please give your review/ack if you already reviewed.
>>
> 
> I don't think there's anything unsafe about removing __rte_unused 
> parameter :) The code itself hasn't changed.
> 

I haven't checked the patch when I write it, agree it looks pretty safe to proceed.