From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mbuf: decrease refcnt when detaching
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:19:17 +0200
Message-ID: <3377984.UT2r9Befy8@xps13>
References: <1463327436-6863-1-git-send-email-h.mikita89@gmail.com>
 <1709340.0fJkCxgyM5@xps13>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B518CE@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Hiroyuki Mikita <h.mikita89@gmail.com>,
 olivier.matz@6wind.com
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDBC16C9B
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 16:19:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id n129so142581832wmn.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 07:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B518CE@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-05-17 13:44, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > 2016-05-17 12:59, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > > > The rte_pktmbuf_detach() function should decrease refcnt on a direct
> > > > > buffer.
> > > >
> > > > As you have noticed, "whenever the indirect buffer is detached,
> > > > the reference counter on the direct buffer is decremented."
> > > > So the current behaviour of rte_pktmbuf_detach() is buggy.
> > > > Why not fix it without renaming?
> > > > If you consider this behavioral bug is part of the API, we
> > > > can fix it in a new function unattach and deprecate detach.
> > > > But Konstantin, why do you want to keep a restore function?
> > > > What is the need?
> > >
> > > I think it might be a useful functionality in some situations:
> > > some users can attach/detach to external memory buffers (no mbufs)
> > > and similar functionality is required.
> > 
> > Attach to external memory buffer (raw buffer) is not currently supported.
> > 
> > > Let say right now examples/vhost/main.c has its own pktmbuf_detach_zcp()
> > 
> > You should look at the commit http://dpdk.org/commit/68363d85
> > 	"examples/vhost: remove the non-working zero copy code"
> > 
> > > which is doing pretty much the same - restore original values, after detaching
> > > mbuf from external (virtio) memory buffer.
> > > Would be good if we'll use a standard API function here.
> > 
> > You are welcome to implement mbuf attach to raw buffer.
> > But it is not a requirement for this fix.
> 
> Hmm, still not sure why we can't keep an existing function?

Because it does not do what its name (and doc) suggest.

> Obviously it wouldn't cost anything and I still think might be useful.

It costs to overcomplicate API for only a half support.
If you need the feature "attach to raw", please implement it completely.