From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E4B1B0FF for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 02:33:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8D52894F; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 20:33:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 14 Jan 2019 20:33:07 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=9I0PAj3mTRuEz3mTHKWx9B+ozTIJvbQidmq+Zbp43lc=; b=DIz4/I/VKl3a zGvvPOviZmR5A11XReK9dOOCEzY9N5rFhKDQMcBBMHXKIU93n4aM3nqPewkqF50R UHsmbKlXAZQrL+YmnBDGrodbtTVKRNv1GzS/lxap7ICNEBCJIybAekn7fpFFRZ4Z AuQWQ9i35jug+u0swVDG8bn7GSo+HkQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=9I0PAj3mTRuEz3mTHKWx9B+ozTIJvbQidmq+Zbp43 lc=; b=YsO9U7h4SlWPf+8E2Tr3Eo/V4t0oMk1j1snR/SCNMuWvyPUkk1KBrBKTl uUwLA3HgcQzlpYbxMCPlFZF+kThzGvfP3K3xudg6szF221MgYRWBHioMoKmMcXma x59YUTgtWzL4LqwgTJbti5USOjUGYBHbhWxnKOTbu0CCKypT6QHgzErGA94tWo03 2j0GRHEn5ur3a7sfHOnsLp+wXlp7RXeexM5k00VZktQojTNPMbu76yKPj1kM9i78 5QUGZTb893F5WJ6yQ3cwAb02yu1BDHicvr/eC/SprLMJMvFuzz2GtPDYgE4J6mav fNl08LjMUjrA89x1RMJ9cd8zT/IPg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrgedvgdefgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfhuthenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedt tdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfh gggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgrshcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceo thhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfe drudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C57DBE465D; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 20:33:05 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: David Marchand Cc: dev@dpdk.org, olivier.matz@6wind.com, yskoh@mellanox.com, arybchenko@solarflare.com, bernard.iremonger@intel.com Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 02:33:04 +0100 Message-ID: <2396925.LEeXtTcc9E@xps> In-Reply-To: <1546851432-19397-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com> References: <1546851432-19397-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/3] segment sanity checks 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, 15 Jan 2019 01:33:08 -0000 07/01/2019 09:57, David Marchand: > Resubmitting this series that I did not finish in my previous life (6WIND > people are okay with this). > > Here is a little series which helped me identify a multi segment issue. > Hope it can help others. > > The difference since the RFC patches I sent some time ago is that, rather > than force the user to build the dpdk with CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_MBUF_DEBUG > enabled, it uses rx/tx callbacks to apply checks on the mbufs. > > Changelog since v1: > - dropped unnecessary casts in patch 1, > - rewrote patch 3: reused the existing rx/tx callbacks and left the invalid > mbufs in rx bulk Applied, thanks