> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ilya Matveychikov > Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 3:08 PM > To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: remove redundant line in > rte_pktmbuf_attach > > > > On Jan 20, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > On 1/20/2017 12:19 AM, Ilya Matveychikov wrote: > >> mi->next will be assigned to NULL few lines later, trivial patch > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ilya V. Matveychikov <matvejchi...@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 1 - > >> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > >> index ead7c6e..5589d54 100644 > >> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > >> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > >> @@ -1139,7 +1139,6 @@ static inline void rte_pktmbuf_attach(struct > >> rte_mbuf *mi, struct rte_mbuf *m) > >> mi->buf_addr = m->buf_addr; > >> mi->buf_len = m->buf_len; > >> > >> - mi->next = m->next; > > > > Do you know why attaching mbuf is not supporting multi-segment?
This is supported, but you have to do it segment by segment. Actually rte_pktmbuf_clone() does that. Konstantin > > Perhaps this can be documented in function comment, as one of the "not > > supported" items. > > No, I don’t know. For my application I’ve found that nb_segs with it’s limit > in 256 segments is very annoying and I’ve decided not to use > DPDK functions that dealt with nb_segs… But it is not about the > rte_pktmbuf_attach() function and the patch. > > > Also, should we check mi->next before overwriting, in case it is not NULL? > > > >> mi->data_off = m->data_off; > >> mi->data_len = m->data_len; > >> mi->port = m->port; > >> > > > > I don’t know. It depends of the usage. Will someone needs to chain two chains > of mbuf?
