On Sat, Oct 08, 2022 at 01:00:24AM +0530, Shijith Thotton wrote: > Used rte_mbuf_data_iova API to get the physical address of mbuf data. > > Signed-off-by: Shijith Thotton <sthot...@marvell.com> > --- > app/test/test_dmadev.c | 33 ++++++++++++++------------------- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/app/test/test_dmadev.c b/app/test/test_dmadev.c > index 9e8e101f40..fe62e98af8 100644 > --- a/app/test/test_dmadev.c > +++ b/app/test/test_dmadev.c > @@ -110,8 +110,8 @@ do_multi_copies(int16_t dev_id, uint16_t vchan, > for (j = 0; j < COPY_LEN/sizeof(uint64_t); j++) > src_data[j] = rte_rand(); > > - if (rte_dma_copy(dev_id, vchan, srcs[i]->buf_iova + > srcs[i]->data_off, > - dsts[i]->buf_iova + dsts[i]->data_off, > COPY_LEN, 0) != id_count++) > + if (rte_dma_copy(dev_id, vchan, rte_mbuf_data_iova(srcs[i]), > + rte_mbuf_data_iova(dsts[i]), COPY_LEN, 0) != > id_count++)
This is not related to your patch, but for the record: I realize that there are 2 APIs for the same thing: rte_pktmbf_iova() and rte_mbuf_data_iova().
