On 4/7/2020 4:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 16:15:16 +0100
> Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>>> +static void
>>> +tap_rxq_pool_free(struct rte_mbuf *pool)
>>> +{
>>> + struct rte_mbuf *mbuf = pool;
>>> + uint16_t nb_segs = 1;
>>> +
>>> + if (mbuf == NULL)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + while (mbuf->next) {
>>> + mbuf = mbuf->next;
>>> + nb_segs++;
>>> + }
>>> + pool->nb_segs = nb_segs;
>>> + rte_pktmbuf_free(pool);
>>> +}
>
> Since mbuf is going to be free, why bother with nb_segs.
> Since rte_pktmbuf_free takes NULL as an argument, and frees the m->next chain
> I don't see why not just
> rte_pktmbuf_free(pool)
>
Chain is not constructed properly, 'nb_segs' is wrong, only 'rte_pktmbuf_free()'
call won't free all the chain but first mbuf.
This implementation is fixing 'nb_segs' sot that 'rte_pktmbuf_free()' can work
as you suggested.
Or I suggest iterate the list and fix all mbufs, instead of fixing 'nb_segs',
this may be one iteration less.
