On 2015-09-07 11:35, Olivier MATZ wrote:
>> Wonder why do we need to do that?
>> Probably head mbuf is out of space and want to expand it using
>> pktmbuf_chain()?
>> So in that case seems logical:
>> 1) allocate new mbuf (it's pkt_len will be 0)
>> b) call pktmbuf_chain()
>
> By experience, hav
Hi,
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
>>> index 8c2db1b..ef47256 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
>>> @@ -1801,6 +1801,29 @@ static inline int rte_pktmbuf_is_contiguous(const
>>> struct rte_mbuf *m)
>>> }
>>>
Hi Simon,
I think it's a good idea. Please see some minor comments below.
On 08/31/2015 02:41 PM, Simon Kagstrom wrote:
> Chaining/segmenting mbufs can be useful in many places, so make it
> global.
>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Kagstrom
> Signed-off-by: Johan Faltstrom
> ---
> NOTE! Only compile-t
] [PATCH RFC] mbuf/ip_frag: Move mbuf chaining to
> common code
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> I think it's a good idea. Please see some minor comments below.
>
> On 08/31/2015 02:41 PM, Simon Kagstrom wrote:
> > Chaining/segmenting mbufs can be useful in many places, so make it
Chaining/segmenting mbufs can be useful in many places, so make it
global.
Signed-off-by: Simon Kagstrom
Signed-off-by: Johan Faltstrom
---
NOTE! Only compile-tested.
We were looking for packet segmenting functionality in the MBUF API but
didn't find it. This patch moves the implementation, apa
5 matches
Mail list logo
