From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6034D108D for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 13:56:34 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id c85so180163834wmi.1 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 04:56:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jlIRZG09+qiSl9tFe7TD2QqtU18OdyXwxzGcuhIzHRo=; b=o6dqZDtRfKgcPHAcfOPfaKctE6M44dZXf6Zcv77GihcToBjQIvv0MQCwEZZNk2KM3U yuGD18iCS6tGm/9tQRHTqVMnfPWjAqli5BrvCCuxeDlwy4s+LdJDvkW78scEr41KiuRq 2ytWS5ZK7mx0ShWg8tFID1qT9JBHVRPU/d4/COdasP0G9DKTxpoCxISpHYZIn+/iseiP Aduo4lH9xtgDZ5xU5wWm35dpgciMa3+N8zjhw8b13lUpsDu2sD9zmpU0SRrqyIxWy+n7 Mc2XsnSMXDHQj0518M6NyoNqG5TYbWZwFTE9xTEiaT3ctQnGmVIDf6ryTxKGWj2P8clh 9wFw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jlIRZG09+qiSl9tFe7TD2QqtU18OdyXwxzGcuhIzHRo=; b=ZeMT+bmEVEg1Z0C4ZQKiRDsa5KWKIV8VELNh5+pB8o2MdeT//5g6mLhdNLjrHwC1si gF7aGqDk9e5iKNxgx8MusW1864FXTZ763Q0aamIGiA0uA4eO5k1pr7R2grWK+p/aKsWt E7tazmJa9WtCquzeMOAEENLP3DPmZGrg3FEjb7APy3M7dzmDrNSGUpR8pJmZ9epkAH3P XbRsVkbvYRiu8KMsbKjfRdWoKP6WfwFZ6WNaXvgyDsZYqfvNSzJN6uFXbnLXclvlISP6 JulWIu9uSnhSNkcpiuh5eQbg3Ch0omVQzE/KatV8W6+q+A+Rp0yEdPsjXaYfYfa8VspP YaRg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLEhtduPSkcXc92LTRZnGudwxOmSj5jqOtJo9ViCVmTI4hmga9NYeTW8nTLiPVSjl+9 X-Received: by 10.28.140.130 with SMTP id o124mr19203172wmd.48.1485262594011; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 04:56:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from glumotte.dev.6wind.com (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com. [62.23.145.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 36sm19722670wrz.8.2017.01.24.04.56.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 24 Jan 2017 04:56:33 -0800 (PST) From: Olivier MATZ X-Google-Original-From: Olivier MATZ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 13:56:27 +0100 To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: Ilya Matveychikov , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "dev@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20170124135627.7ab3d703@glumotte.dev.6wind.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F10925D@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <7181C1FE-0FB9-4FB8-9A12-08AB4506880E@gmail.com> <37EFD294-2DEE-4140-9A74-423429B82B02@gmail.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583F10925D@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: remove redundant line in rte_pktmbuf_attach X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 12:56:34 -0000 Hi, On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:28:29 +0000, "Ananyev, Konstantin" wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ilya > > Matveychikov Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 3:08 PM > > To: Yigit, Ferruh > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: remove redundant line in > > rte_pktmbuf_attach > >=20 > > =20 > > > On Jan 20, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Ferruh Yigit > > > wrote: > > > > > > On 1/20/2017 12:19 AM, Ilya Matveychikov wrote: =20 > > >> mi->next will be assigned to NULL few lines later, trivial patch > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Ilya V. Matveychikov > > >> --- > > >> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 1 - > > >> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > >> > > >> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > > >> b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h index ead7c6e..5589d54 100644 > > >> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > > >> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > > >> @@ -1139,7 +1139,6 @@ static inline void > > >> rte_pktmbuf_attach(struct rte_mbuf *mi, struct rte_mbuf *m) > > >> mi->buf_addr =3D m->buf_addr; mi->buf_len =3D m->buf_len; > > >> > > >> - mi->next =3D m->next; =20 > > > Fixes: ea672a8b1655 ("mbuf: remove the rte_pktmbuf structure") Acked-by: Olivier Matz > > > Do you know why attaching mbuf is not supporting multi-segment? =20 >=20 > This is supported, but you have to do it segment by segment. > Actually rte_pktmbuf_clone() does that. > Konstantin >=20 >=20 > > > Perhaps this can be documented in function comment, as one of the > > > "not supported" items. =20 > >=20 > > No, I don=E2=80=99t know. For my application I=E2=80=99ve found that nb= _segs with > > it=E2=80=99s limit in 256 segments is very annoying and I=E2=80=99ve de= cided not to > > use DPDK functions that dealt with nb_segs=E2=80=A6 But it is not about= the > > rte_pktmbuf_attach() function and the patch.=20 Out of curiosity, can you explain why your application needs more than 256 segments? When we were discussing the possibility of extending this field to 16 bits, Konstantin convinced me that it was not so useful. Thanks, Olivier