Thanks for clarifying, I've back ported this up to branch-2.4
On 09/03/2016 17:46, "Yuanhan Liu" wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:33:03AM +, Daniele Di Proietto wrote:
>> Thanks for the patch!
>>
>> Were you able to hit this bug in your setup or did you just
>> find this by code inspectio
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:33:03AM +, Daniele Di Proietto wrote:
> Thanks for the patch!
>
> Were you able to hit this bug in your setup or did you just
> find this by code inspection?
Yes, it's a 100% reproducible bug if you have TSO enabled, which is a
feature has been merged for DPDK v2.3
Thanks for the patch!
Were you able to hit this bug in your setup or did you just
find this by code inspection?
I'm asking because I'm wondering whether we should backport
the fix.
In any case I've applied this to master and added your name
to the AUTHORS file, thanks!
On 07/03/2016 17:50, "dev
mbufs could be chained (by the "next" field of rte_mbuf struct), when
an mbuf is not big enough to hold a big packet, say when TSO is enabled.
rte_pktmbuf_free_seg() frees the head mbuf only, leading mbuf leaks.
This patch fix it by invoking the right API rte_pktmbuf_free(), to
free all mbufs in t
