Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 7:22 PM
> To: Suanming Mou <suanmi...@nvidia.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ciara Power <ciara.po...@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test-crypto-perf: fix invalid mbuf next
> operation
>
> 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);
>
Make sense. Maybe just like that:
m->next = (struct rte_mbuf *) ((uint8_t *) m +
mbuf_hdr_size + segment_sz);
m = m->next;
What do you think?
> > + m->next = next_mbuf;
> > + m = next_mbuf;
> > + } else {
> > + m->next = NULL;
> > + }
> > } while (remaining_segments > 0);
> > -
> > - m->next = NULL;
> > }
> >
> > static void
> > --
> > 2.34.1
