Triggered by another discussion, I have identified a potential bug related to this patch.
> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Viacheslav > Ovsiienko > Sent: Monday, 20 January 2020 20.16 > > Update detach routine to check the mbuf pool type. > Introduce the special internal version of detach routine to handle > the special case of pinned external bufferon mbuf freeing. > > Signed-off-by: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com> > Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viachesl...@mellanox.com> > Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> > --- [...] > @@ -1201,8 +1278,13 @@ static inline void rte_pktmbuf_detach(struct > rte_mbuf *m) > > if (likely(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(m) == 1)) { > > - if (!RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(m)) > - rte_pktmbuf_detach(m); > + if (!RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(m)) { > + if (!RTE_MBUF_HAS_EXTBUF(m) || > + !RTE_MBUF_HAS_PINNED_EXTBUF(m)) > + rte_pktmbuf_detach(m); > + else if (__rte_pktmbuf_pinned_extbuf_decref(m)) > + return NULL; When NULL is returned here, m->refcnt is still 1. > + } > > if (m->next != NULL) { > m->next = NULL; > @@ -1213,8 +1295,13 @@ static inline void rte_pktmbuf_detach(struct > rte_mbuf *m) > > } else if (__rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(m, -1) == 0) { > > - if (!RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(m)) > - rte_pktmbuf_detach(m); > + if (!RTE_MBUF_DIRECT(m)) { > + if (!RTE_MBUF_HAS_EXTBUF(m) || > + !RTE_MBUF_HAS_PINNED_EXTBUF(m)) > + rte_pktmbuf_detach(m); > + else if (__rte_pktmbuf_pinned_extbuf_decref(m)) > + return NULL; When NULL is returned here, m->refcnt has been decremented to 0. I don't know which is correct, but I suppose m->refcnt should end up with the same value in both cases? > + } > > if (m->next != NULL) { > m->next = NULL; > -- > 1.8.3.1 >
