Hi Chunmei,
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 03:44:55PM -0800, chunmei Liu wrote:
> From: chunmei <chunmei....@intel.com>
>
> ceph async messenger has some run time error with this dpdk library,
> 1) need set rxm->next= null at end of packet since not init it to null
> when allocate a buffer other wise rte_mbuf_sanity_check will report error.
> 2) when check the size, can't calculate mbuf_data_room_size
> because async messenger dpdk will allocate this part later
> not at create mempool.
>
> Signed-off-by: chunmei Liu <chunmei....@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 3 ++-
> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c | 3 ++-
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> index 1e07895..918946b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> @@ -2190,7 +2190,8 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf
> **rx_pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts,
> rxm->next = next_rxe->mbuf;
> next_sc_entry->fbuf = first_seg;
> goto next_desc;
> - }
> + } else
> + rxm->next = NULL;
>
> /* Initialize the first mbuf of the returned packet */
> ixgbe_fill_cluster_head_buf(first_seg, &rxd, rxq, staterr);
> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c
> index 0e3e36a..c01da19 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c
> @@ -102,7 +102,6 @@ rte_pktmbuf_pool_init(struct rte_mempool *mp, void
> *opaque_arg)
> }
>
> RTE_ASSERT(mp->elt_size >= sizeof(struct rte_mbuf) +
> - user_mbp_priv->mbuf_data_room_size +
> user_mbp_priv->mbuf_priv_size);
>
> mbp_priv = rte_mempool_get_priv(mp);
I don't see the point here.
Many parts of dpdk rely on this code without issue. I enabled the
asserts and see no issue with testpmd. Can you give more details?
> @@ -233,6 +232,8 @@ rte_mbuf_sanity_check(const struct rte_mbuf *m, int
> is_header)
> }
> if (nb_segs != 0)
> rte_panic("bad nb_segs\n");
> + if (m_seg != NULL)
> + rte_panic("bad m_seg\n");
> }
A similar check was recently sumbitted in another patch. Please see:
https://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/32057/
