From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <nubinstanley@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-qk0-f174.google.com (mail-qk0-f174.google.com
 [209.85.220.174]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21961FB62
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:04:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-qk0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u25so35141722qki.2
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 04:04:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=+9axUWv//Cck0sfEj6U/u27TmHgq/pmnFupQ7HAr/nc=;
 b=TJU49RFlRiVw/JFdaAXt7dwg0VZ1vMeBtDVJlkKywbhzZvw7YXb8bUGuO5kbbvYxTa
 u4pX9awviJ0tM3zsA4BZ2QRUAqBh5o2YiKCM1St9DGmvj4fkQ/GF+6Ac5XReRVbipvEf
 DAsHX5NjC/0LY5RrnE3gJHIV1F+5DN4qSDa+xbPzyGlIoddBUF/2hpL8zTaaDOnc1INw
 bpXfRfkhYBdOrX1gUkYT3dU/+VK3VxZXlUH0WWCX+ygv4DNPuK1Sa9myL0VbwRu6+Yze
 KIeXQu2r81GSbBmIu3JLLrTXBpqWvAwCNURmBu6QjJ4O9iO7Vs+mRUAy7bFHBNYHG6GS
 oB1A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=+9axUWv//Cck0sfEj6U/u27TmHgq/pmnFupQ7HAr/nc=;
 b=YSypcyDR8FkrOLmUI2lF+58/3ZHgSrLNiwo7kUcRkYPW8tdVd5Fu+DgOY1w49lhW0v
 luApoqFPj3r2iPIa70vOa15DJ4K7h45OyeiWs3CK6z1AtYDwyrHJqGIZnyKkCdXahB62
 rYkv6EZy1zbXPnrVw3WAL1i/23sDhBjT068b5tbIODLBkGkJXlJijRGpbbf3uNhkKGa2
 /OIIf7Ct+THhVcj8mmI2IbBjnJY5yi89lYzAxPDL4oF/xJV4b6lNOMNit64kGfdaBUA6
 6pYawTyZwKRCrsGyhT9LsbsYksQ9G4O/TPrVOA8pDENMk57Zdw8G6f87Wb1ozYvL6gdN
 UWpA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLgxx5pxJVm83n085lRqfWDXR+g9mf2XY0y2TxBLk6l36QzudsH2RMHFOkiNQNDDb+OjJP6JnqTeuuKfg==
X-Received: by 10.55.42.34 with SMTP id q34mr7006338qkh.91.1482235453421; Tue,
 20 Dec 2016 04:04:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.29.137 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 04:04:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Nubin Stanley <nubinstanley@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:34:13 +0530
Message-ID: <CAL53N-kEn1iLz=V+1vN0OP1uerFbRC78BM8GcFQqUmc+JYgmBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: users@dpdk.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: [dpdk-users] Usage of "rte_pktmbuf_attach"
X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK usage discussions <users.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/users/>
List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:04:14 -0000

Hi All

I have a doubt regarding the usage of :

static inline void rte_pktmbuf_attach(struct rte_mbuf **mi*, struct
rte_mbuf **m*)

Say "mi" is a newly allocated buffer. "m" is a multi-segment buffer (say
with 2 segments). Now, within the attach API, I see that "mi->nb_segs" is
always set to 1.

attach_frames(in_pkt)      // in_pkt has 2 segments
{
     pkt_1 = alloc();    // single segment
     pkt_2 = alloc();    // single segment

     rte_pktmbuf_attach(pkt_2, in_pkt);

     <<Update pkt_2 fields so that only part of in_pkt is used>>

     rte_pktmbuf_chain(pkt_1, pkt_2);
}

1) Will the attach ensure that whatever pkt_2 points to has the 2 segments
in in_pkt ? Or should I somehow loop and allocate new buffers and do
multiple attaches ?
2) Say, attach is properly done, the "chain" API should work as usual ?

Regards
Nubin Stanley