Hi, Yongseok, Maybe you should consider using the pool member of the mbuf, instead of passing it as a parameter for rte_mbuf_buf_addr_default(). The pool member of mbuf indicates the pool from which it was allocated. See http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h#n631
And actually the is exactly what you do in the second method, rte_mbuf_data_baddr_default(), when invoking the first, this is also kind of non consistency. >> David Marchand wrote: > So for me s/rte_mbuf_buf_addr_default/rte_mbuf_buf_addr/g > Or just rte_mbuf_data_addr_default() ? + 1 >> David Marchand wrote: >Those are new functions, they should go through the EXPERIMENTAL api >marking process. +1 Regards, Rami Rosen בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בינו׳ 2019, 15:47, מאת David Marchand < david.march...@redhat.com>: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 2:19 PM Yongseok Koh <ys...@mellanox.com> wrote: > > > This patch introduces two new functions - rte_mbuf_buf_addr_default() and > > rte_mbuf_data_baddr_default(). > > > > rte_mbuf_buf_addr_default() reutrns the default buffer address of given > > mbuf which comes after mbuf structure and private data. > > > > The buffer address should always be the same for a given mbuf, there is no > "default" value for it, there is only one value. > So for me s/rte_mbuf_buf_addr_default/rte_mbuf_buf_addr/g. > > > > rte_mbuf_data_baddr_default() returns the default address of mbuf data > > taking the headroom into account. > > > > Or just rte_mbuf_data_addr_default() ? > > > > Signed-off-by: Yongseok Koh <ys...@mellanox.com> > > > > Those are new functions, they should go through the EXPERIMENTAL api > marking process. > > > -- > David Marchand >