From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] mbuf: provide rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk
 API
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:55:11 +0100
Message-ID: <56D012EF.9090507@6wind.com>
References: <1450049754-33635-1-git-send-email-huawei.xie@intel.com>
 <1453827815-56384-1-git-send-email-huawei.xie@intel.com>
 <1453827815-56384-2-git-send-email-huawei.xie@intel.com>
 <56A8CCA3.7060302@redhat.com> <56B237AD.1040209@6wind.com>
 <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C5EE961@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C5F0655@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "dprovan@bivio.net" <dprovan@bivio.net>
To: "Xie, Huawei" <huawei.xie@intel.com>,
 Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD73E2C4D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:55:18 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C5F0655@SHSMSX101.ccr.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>



On 02/23/2016 06:35 AM, Xie, Huawei wrote:
>>> Also, it would be nice to have a simple test function in
>>> app/test/test_mbuf.c. For instance, you could update
>>> test_one_pktmbuf() to take a mbuf pointer as a parameter and remove
>>> the mbuf allocation from the function. Then it could be called with
>>> a mbuf allocated with rte_pktmbuf_alloc() (like before) and with
>>> all the mbufs of rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk().
> 
> Don't quite get you. Is it that we write two cases, one case allocate
> mbuf through rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk and one use rte_pktmbuf_alloc? It is
> good to have. 

Yes, something like:

test_one_pktmbuf(struct rte_mbuf *m)
{
	/* same as before without the allocation/free */
}

test_pkt_mbuf(void)
{
	m = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(pool);
	test_one_pktmbuf(m);
	rte_pktmbuf_free(m);

	ret = rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(pool, mtab, BULK_CNT)
	for (i = 0; i < BULK_CNT; i++) {
		m = mtab[i];
		test_one_pktmbuf(m);
		rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
	}
}

> I could do this after this patch.

Yes, please.


Thanks,
Olivier