[dpdk-dev] [PATCHv4 2/9] null: fix segfault when null_pmd added to bonding

Kulasek, TomaszX tomaszx.kulasek at intel.com
Tue Sep 29 13:29:26 CEST 2015


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tetsuya Mukawa [mailto:mukawa at igel.co.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 12:33
> To: Kulasek, TomaszX
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCHv4 2/9] null: fix segfault when null_pmd
> added to bonding
> 
> On 2015/09/29 18:39, Kulasek, TomaszX wrote:
> > Hi Tetsuya,
> >
> >> Thanks for extending null pmd features.
> >> Is it possible to use rte_null_pmd here?
> >> Could you please check ring pmd? It may also uses rte_ring_pmd for
> >> link status callback.
> >>
> >> Tetsuya
> > My first attempt was to use ring pmd, and there's no such an issue
> with it. It works pretty well in bonding.
> >
> > Tomasz.
> 
> HI Tomasz,
> 
> 
> Sorry, my English is wrong.
> 'rte_null_pmd' is defined like below.
> 
> static struct eth_driver rte_null_pmd = {
>         .pci_drv = {
>                 .name = "rte_null_pmd",
>                 .drv_flags = RTE_PCI_DRV_DETACHABLE,
>         },
> };
> 
> I guess you may be able to use 'rte_null_pmd' instead of allocating one
> more eth_driver structure like below.
> 
>     struct eth_driver *eth_drv = NULL;
>     eth_drv = rte_zmalloc_socket(name, sizeof(*eth_drv), 0, numa_node);
> 
> Is it possible to use 'rte_null_pmd'?
> 
> Tetsuya

Yes, you're right. This malloc can be removed.

Tomasz


More information about the dev mailing list