Hi Suanming,
Good catch. Please see inline.
Thanks,
Anoob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suanming Mou <suanmi...@nvidia.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 9:24 AM
> To: Ciara Power <ciara.po...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test-crypto-perf: fix invalid mbuf next operation
>
> External Email
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> In fill_multi_seg_mbuf(), when remaining_segments is 0, rte_mbuf m's next
> should pointer to NULL instead of a new rte_mbuf, that casues setting m->next
> as NULL out of the while loop to the invalid mbuf.
>
> This commit fixes the invalid mbuf next operation.
>
> Fixes: bf9d6702eca9 ("app/crypto-perf: use single mempool")
>
> Signed-off-by: Suanming Mou <suanmi...@nvidia.com>
> ---
> app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c | 12 +++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c b/app/test-crypto-
> perf/cperf_test_common.c
> index 932aab16df..ad2076dd2e 100644
> --- a/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c
> +++ b/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c
> @@ -72,13 +72,15 @@ fill_multi_seg_mbuf(struct rte_mbuf *m, struct
> rte_mempool *mp,
> rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(m, 1);
> next_mbuf = (struct rte_mbuf *) ((uint8_t *) m +
> mbuf_hdr_size + segment_sz);
> - m->next = next_mbuf;
> - m = next_mbuf;
> - remaining_segments--;
>
> + remaining_segments--;
> + if (remaining_segments > 0) {
[Anoob] Would it make sense to move assignment of next_mbuf also to here? That
way, the checks will become self explanatory.
next_mbuf = (struct rte_mbuf *) ((uint8_t *) m +
mbuf_hdr_size + segment_sz);
> + m->next = next_mbuf;
> + m = next_mbuf;
> + } else {
> + m->next = NULL;
> + }
> } while (remaining_segments > 0);
> -
> - m->next = NULL;
> }
>
> static void
> --
> 2.34.1
