Hi Damjan, Thanks for the feedback. Out of curiosity, what is the motivation of this contract about minimal length of chained buffer data -- surely, my case being in point, the chaining framework should not make any assumptions about how the user would use it.
Regards -Prashant On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 12:59 AM Damjan Marion <dmar...@me.com> wrote: > > > — > Damjan > > > > On 06.09.2021., at 15:27, Prashant Upadhyaya <praupadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am using VPP21.06 > In vlib_buffer_advance there is the following assert -- > ASSERT ((b->flags & VLIB_BUFFER_NEXT_PRESENT) == 0 || > b->current_length >= VLIB_BUFFER_MIN_CHAIN_SEG_SIZE); > > The above is problematic as I have a usecase where I construct a chained > packet. > The first packet in the chain is containing just an ip4/udp/gtp header > and the second packet in the chain is an IP4 packet of arbitrary > length -- you can see that I am trying to wrap the packet into gtp via > chaining. > As a result this assert hits and brings the house down. > My usecase works fine when I use the non-debug build of VPP. > > Perhaps this assert should be removed ? > > > This assert enforces contract with the rest of the VPP code about minimal > length of chaine buffer data. > You can remove it, but be aware of consequences. At some point things may > just blow up…. > > — > Damjan
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#20093): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/20093 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/85411974/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
