> -----Original Message----- > From: Tetsuya Mukawa [mailto:mukawa at igel.co.jp] > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 12:33 > To: Kulasek, TomaszX > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCHv4 2/9] null: fix segfault when null_pmd > added to bonding > > On 2015/09/29 18:39, Kulasek, TomaszX wrote: > > Hi Tetsuya, > > > >> Thanks for extending null pmd features. > >> Is it possible to use rte_null_pmd here? > >> Could you please check ring pmd? It may also uses rte_ring_pmd for > >> link status callback. > >> > >> Tetsuya > > My first attempt was to use ring pmd, and there's no such an issue > with it. It works pretty well in bonding. > > > > Tomasz. > > HI Tomasz, > > > Sorry, my English is wrong. > 'rte_null_pmd' is defined like below. > > static struct eth_driver rte_null_pmd = { > .pci_drv = { > .name = "rte_null_pmd", > .drv_flags = RTE_PCI_DRV_DETACHABLE, > }, > }; > > I guess you may be able to use 'rte_null_pmd' instead of allocating one > more eth_driver structure like below. > > struct eth_driver *eth_drv = NULL; > eth_drv = rte_zmalloc_socket(name, sizeof(*eth_drv), 0, numa_node); > > Is it possible to use 'rte_null_pmd'? > > Tetsuya
Yes, you're right. This malloc can be removed. Tomasz
