2014-12-04 15:29, Ananyev, Konstantin: > From: Richardson, Bruce > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 02:50:11PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Mickael > > > Guerin > > > > The template mbuf_initializer is hard coded with a buflen which > > > > might have been set differently by the application at the time of > > > > mbuf pool creation. > > > > > > > > Switch to a mbuf allocation, to fetch the correct default values. > > > > There is no performance impact because this is not a data-plane API. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Mickael Guerin <jean-mickael.guerin at 6wind.com> > > > > Acked-by: David Marchand <david.marchand at 6wind.com> > > > > Fixes: 0ff3324da2 ("ixgbe: rework vector pmd following mbuf changes") > > > > --- > > > > lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c > > > > b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c > > > > index c1b5a78..f7b02f5 100644 > > > > --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c > > > > @@ -732,17 +732,22 @@ static struct ixgbe_txq_ops vec_txq_ops = { > > > > int > > > > ixgbe_rxq_vec_setup(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq) > > > > { > > > > - struct rte_mbuf mb_def = { .buf_addr = 0 }; /* zeroed mbuf */ > > > > + struct rte_mbuf *mb_def; > > > > > > > > - mb_def.nb_segs = 1; > > > > - mb_def.data_off = RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM; > > > > - mb_def.buf_len = rxq->mb_pool->elt_size - sizeof(struct > > > > rte_mbuf); > > > > - mb_def.port = rxq->port_id; > > > > - rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(&mb_def, 1); > > > > + mb_def = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(rxq->mb_pool); > > > > > > Could you explain to me, what is an advantage of using dynamic allocation > > > vs local struct here? > > > I don't see any. > > > > It means that we get an mbuf that is initialized as done by the > > initialization > > function passed to the mempool_create call. The static variable method > > assumes > > that we configure the mbuf using default setting for buf_len etc. > > I understand that, but why it can't be done in some other way? > Without allocating/freeing? > Let say, at mempool_create() store obj_init() and then add ability to call it > again? > Anyway, it doesn't look to me like a critical problem, that requires an > urgent patch for 1.8.
Konstantin, when a bug is seen, it must be fixed ASAP. -- Thomas