[dpdk-users] A minor suggestion to the comment of the rte_eth_tx_burst() of dpdk-16.04

Olivier Matz olivier.matz at 6wind.com
Mon Jun 13 15:36:58 CEST 2016


On 06/10/2016 11:41 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-06-10 19:09, Wu, Xiaoban:
>> Dear DPDK Users,
>> I have a very small suggestion to the comment of the
>> rte_eth_tx_burst(). It is not a big deal to the experienced users,
>> but I think this will make the new users know how to use this
>> function more clearly and see the big picture easily.
>> The comment of "tx_pkts" says:
>> * @param tx_pkts *   The address of an array of *nb_pkts* pointers
>> to *rte_mbuf* structures *   which contain the output packets.
>> I am a beginner of DPDK. If I see this comment I would probably
>> naively use rte_zmalloc() to construct such pointer array, for each
>> pointer I use rte_malloc() to allocate memory, and finally fill the
>> memory starting from the position (pointed by the macro
>> rte_pktmbuf_mtod()) with real packet content(header and payload).
>> But I just find that the rte_eth_tx_burst() will call the
>> rte_pktmbuf_free() to free the struct rte_mbuf. In default,
>> "CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_MBUF_DEBUG=n", this means it will skip the
>> __rte_mbuf_sanity_check(), and will finally get into
>> rte_mempool_put(). Since above construction process skip the
>> construction of the field "struct rte_mempool", it means the
>> "struct rte_mempool" field is null in each packet "struct
>> rte_mbuf"(of course, all the fields are zero). Hence it will
>> finally cause segmentation fault.
>> Thus, I have a very small suggestion, please add something like "It
>> is recommended that the tx_pkts is constructed by
>> rte_pktmbuf_pool_create() combined with rte_mempool_get_bulk(), if
>> not please make sure the fields of the struct rte_mbuf are
>> correctly configured."
> Good suggestion. Olivier do you agree?

Yes, I'll send a patch to dev at dpdk.org to enhance the API doc.
Thanks Xiaoban for reporting.


More information about the users mailing list