Hi Konstantin£¬


    I've been busy lately, sorry to reply to you late.


    > Instead of implicitly assuming that output mbufs will be allocated
> from pkt_in pool, it would be better to have output_pool as explicit
> parameter for that function.

> In a same way we have it for rte_ipv4_fragment_packet().


> If I understand correctly, here you assume that out_pkt will always
> be big enough to hold entire fragment, right?
> But that can not always be the case and probably we shouldn't assume
> that for generic function.
> I suppose safest way would be either use rte_pktmbuf_copy() here 
> directly or do something similar to what that function doing ourselves here.
reply: Thanks for the reminder, I will use explicit parameters and rte_pktmbuf_copy();
> Forgot to mention, new API has to be experimental.
reply: Does this mean adding _rte_experimental when declaring a function?


Huichao,Cai