On 02/23/2016 06:35 AM, Xie, Huawei wrote:
>>> Also, it would be nice to have a simple test function in
>>> app/test/test_mbuf.c. For instance, you could update
>>> test_one_pktmbuf() to take a mbuf pointer as a parameter and remove
>>> the mbuf allocation from the function. Then it could be called with
>>> a mbuf allocated with rte_pktmbuf_alloc() (like before) and with
>>> all the mbufs of rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk().
> 
> Don't quite get you. Is it that we write two cases, one case allocate
> mbuf through rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk and one use rte_pktmbuf_alloc? It is
> good to have. 

Yes, something like:

test_one_pktmbuf(struct rte_mbuf *m)
{
        /* same as before without the allocation/free */
}

test_pkt_mbuf(void)
{
        m = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(pool);
        test_one_pktmbuf(m);
        rte_pktmbuf_free(m);

        ret = rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(pool, mtab, BULK_CNT)
        for (i = 0; i < BULK_CNT; i++) {
                m = mtab[i];
                test_one_pktmbuf(m);
                rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
        }
}

> I could do this after this patch.

Yes, please.


Thanks,
Olivier

Reply via email to