On 1/31/2017 3:25 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
Hi Hemant,
Sorry for the delay.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:41:20 +0530, Hemant Agrawal
<hemant.agra...@nxp.com> wrote:
When possible, replace the uses of rte_mempool_create() with
the helper provided in librte_mbuf: rte_pktmbuf_pool_create().
This is the preferred way to create a mbuf pool.
This also updates the documentation.
Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>
Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>
[...]
--- a/examples/ip_reassembly/main.c
@@ -909,11 +908,13 @@ struct rte_lpm6_config lpm6_config = {
snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "mbuf_pool_%u_%u", lcore, queue);
- if ((rxq->pool = rte_mempool_create(buf, nb_mbuf, MBUF_SIZE,
0,
- sizeof(struct rte_pktmbuf_pool_private),
- rte_pktmbuf_pool_init, NULL,
rte_pktmbuf_init, NULL,
- socket, MEMPOOL_F_SP_PUT |
MEMPOOL_F_SC_GET)) == NULL) {
- RTE_LOG(ERR, IP_RSMBL, "mempool_create(%s) failed",
buf);
+ rxq->pool = rte_pktmbuf_pool_create(buf, nb_mbuf,
+ 0, /* cache size */
+ 0, /* priv size */
+ MBUF_DATA_SIZE, socket);
+ if (rxq->pool == NULL) {
+ RTE_LOG(ERR, IP_RSMBL,
+ "rte_pktmbuf_pool_create(%s) failed", buf);
return -1;
Here we loose the SP/SC flags. In the ip reassembly example, it looks
there is one mbuf pool per rx core since the beginning (commit
cc8f4d020). It's probably not critical, but I think we should remove
the ip reass part of the patch, what do you think?
I agree, I will send the next version.
Note that this issue was also in my RFC patch, so it's my
mistake :)
Apart from that, the patch looks good.
Thanks
Olivier
