Hi Huichao,
I've been busy lately, sorry to reply to you late.
No worries at all.
Instead of implicitly assuming that output mbufs will be allocated
from pkt_in pool, it would be better to have output_pool as explicit
parameter for that function.
In a same way we have it for rte_ipv4_fragment_packet().
If I understand correctly, here you assume that out_pkt will always
be big enough to hold entire fragment, right?
But that can not always be the case and probably we shouldn't assume
that for generic function.
I suppose safest way would be either use rte_pktmbuf_copy() here
directly or do something similar to what that function doing ourselves here.
reply: Thanks for the reminder, I will use explicit parameters and
rte_pktmbuf_copy();
Forgot to mention, new API has to be experimental.
reply: Does this mean adding _rte_experimental when declaring a function?
Yes, I meant _rte_experimental tag.
Thanks
Konstantin
