Hello, On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 at 12:23, Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> wrote: > > + dp_packet_copy__(b, new_base, new_headroom, new_tailroom); > > + netdev_dpdk_extbuf_replace(b, new_base, extbuf_len); > > + /* Because of alignment, we may have gained a bit more tailroom > > than > > + * expected. Rely on this mbuf buf_len which got adjusted by > > + * rte_pktmbuf_attach_extbuf(). */ > > + new_allocated = b->mbuf.buf_len; > > nit: We're not accessing mbuf directly anywhere in this file, so I wonder > if we should use the access function here instead, e.g.: > > /* Because of alignment, we may have gained a bit more tailroom than > * expected. Update from the currently allocated length which got > * adjusted by rte_pktmbuf_attach_extbuf(). */ > new_allocated = dp_packet_get_allocated(b); > > WDYT? > > Also, double spaces between sentences. > > All these could probbaly be adjusted on commit, the rest of the code and > the updated test look good to me: > > Acked-by: Ilya Maximets <[email protected]>
LGTM. I sent a v6. -- David Marchand _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
