On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:55:35AM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> On 08/16/2015 09:08 PM, Dan Aloni wrote:
[..]
> > /* Check that pg_num and pg_shift parameters are valid. */
> > - if (pg_num < RTE_DIM(mp->elt_pa) || pg_shift > MEMPOOL_PG_SHIFT_MAX) {
> > + if (pg_num > RTE_DIM(mp->elt_pa) || pg_shift > MEMPOOL_PG_SHIFT_MAX) {
> > rte_errno = EINVAL;
> > return NULL;
>
> From what I see, RTE_DIM(mp->elt_pa) is always 1:
>
> #define MEMPOOL_PG_NUM_DEFAULT 1
> struct rte_mempool {
> ...
> phys_addr_t elt_pa[MEMPOOL_PG_NUM_DEFAULT];
> } __rte_cache_aligned;
>
> From rte_mempool_xmem_create() documentation, pg_num gives the size of
> the paddr array, which is allocated by the caller. So I think there is
> no issue here.
You're right, I missed on the fact that mempool takes pg_num as its
run-time determined size of the array for both its dynamically allocated
copy and the caller's provided array.
The MEMPOOL_PG_NUM_DEFAULT macro is was a bit distracting in this. I
wanted to provide pg_num > 1 and it wasn't clear on whether to modify
the macro, or simply call the function :). So, never mind the patch.
--
Dan Aloni
