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