From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linhaifeng Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/librte_vhost:fix can't send packet anymore after mempool is full again Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 11:58:06 +0800 Message-ID: <550CEC4E.6070106@huawei.com> References: <1426823642-27360-1-git-send-email-haifeng.lin@huawei.com> <550BBFD7.6030206@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Ouyang, Changchun" , "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" Hi, changchun & xie I have modify the path with your suggestions.Please review. Thank you. On 2015/3/20 15:28, Ouyang, Changchun wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Linhaifeng [mailto:haifeng.lin-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org] >> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 2:36 PM >> To: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org >> Cc: Ouyang, Changchun; Xie, Huawei >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/librte_vhost:fix can't send packet anymore after >> mempool is full again >> >> >> >> On 2015/3/20 11:54, linhaifeng wrote: >>> From: Linhaifeng >>> >>> When failed to malloc buffer from mempool we just update last_used_idx >>> but not used->idx so after many times vhost thought have handle all >>> packets but virtio_net thought vhost have not handle all packets and >>> will not update avail->idx. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Linhaifeng >>> --- >>> lib/librte_vhost/vhost_rxtx.c | 3 ++- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_rxtx.c >>> b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_rxtx.c index 535c7a1..93a8fff 100644 >>> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_rxtx.c >>> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_rxtx.c >>> @@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ rte_vhost_dequeue_burst(struct virtio_net *dev, >> uint16_t queue_id, >>> if (unlikely(m == NULL)) { >>> RTE_LOG(ERR, VHOST_DATA, >>> "Failed to allocate memory for mbuf.\n"); >>> - return entry_success; >>> + goto finish; >> >> or use 'break' replace of 'goto' ? > > Make sense, I can review if you make a v2 patch > Thanks > Changchun > > > > -- Regards, Haifeng