> -----Original Message----- > From: Richardson, Bruce > Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 5:02 PM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > Cc: Olivier MATZ; dev at dpdk.org; Damjan Marion (damarion) > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_mbuf.next in 2nd cacheline > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 04:59:55PM +0100, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > > > > > As I can see, vector TX is the only one that calls > > __rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg() directly. > > All others use rte_pktmbuf_free_seg(), that does ' m->next = NULL' anyway. > > For vector TX - yes, need to verify that it would not introduce a slowdown. > > Konstantin > > > > But if the function is only directly called from one place, and that doesn't > have a problem, why would we bother making any change at all?
For future usages? But sure, if you believe that we can safely remove 'm->next = NULL' at RX path, without any changes in the __rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg() - that seems fine to me. Konstantin > > /Bruce
