On 06/05, Li, Xiaoyun wrote: >> >> Yes, I agree, but I don't think it is the case here. >> >> >It will cause segment fault in enqueue/dequeue. >> >> Hmm, have you debug it? Which line caused the segfault? >> >> You can refer to test_rawdev_enqdeq function in skeleton_rawdev_test.c, what >> it does is similar to my suggestion, and you just need one alloc/free. >> >Of course I debug on it. It will cause seg fault at rte_memcpy. Because >buffers[0]->buf_addr is not right. >You can see the debug log. >(gdb) p test_pkts_send[0].buf_addr >$3 = (void *) 0x5555562784c0 >(gdb) n >164 rte_rawdev_set_attr(dev_id, "spad14", val); >(gdb) >ntb_attr_set(): Set attribute (spad14) Value (0) >165 val = size; >(gdb) >166 rte_rawdev_set_attr(dev_id, "spad15", val); >(gdb) >ntb_attr_set(): Set attribute (spad15) Value (35) >175 rte_rawdev_enqueue_buffers(dev_id, (struct rte_rawdev_buf >**)&test_pkts_send, 1, (void *)size); >(gdb) > >Thread 1 "ntb_fwd" hit Breakpoint 2, ntb_enqueue_bufs (dev=0x555556023b80 ><rte_rawdevices>, buffers=0x7fffffff7fe0, count=1, > context=0x23) at > /home/xiaoyun/ntb/dpdk-next-net-intel/drivers/raw/ntb_rawdev/ntb_rawdev.c:244 >244 struct ntb_hw *hw = dev->dev_private; >(gdb) n >248 if (hw->ntb_ops->get_peer_mw_addr == NULL) >(gdb) >249 return -ENOTSUP; >(gdb) p buffers[0]->buf_addr >$4 = (void *) 0x6f77206f6c6c6568 >(gdb) p &buffers[0]->buf_addr >$5 = (void **) 0x5555562784c0
Hmm, you're right, after a second thought, we do need double alloc/free in this case, my bad. Thanks, Xiaolong > >> Thanks, >> Xiaolong >> >> > >> >I will free twice. >> > >> >> > >2.17.1 >> >> > >
