From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: remove redundant line in rte_pktmbuf_attach Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:08:45 +0000 Message-ID: References: <7181C1FE-0FB9-4FB8-9A12-08AB4506880E@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Ilya Matveychikov , dev@dpdk.org Return-path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E38272BBD for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:08:47 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <7181C1FE-0FB9-4FB8-9A12-08AB4506880E@gmail.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 1/20/2017 12:19 AM, Ilya Matveychikov wrote: > mi->next will be assigned to NULL few lines later, trivial patch > > Signed-off-by: Ilya V. Matveychikov > --- > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > index ead7c6e..5589d54 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h > @@ -1139,7 +1139,6 @@ static inline void rte_pktmbuf_attach(struct rte_mbuf *mi, struct rte_mbuf *m) > mi->buf_addr = m->buf_addr; > mi->buf_len = m->buf_len; > > - mi->next = m->next; Do you know why attaching mbuf is not supporting multi-segment? Perhaps this can be documented in function comment, as one of the "not supported" items. Also, should we check mi->next before overwriting, in case it is not NULL? > mi->data_off = m->data_off; > mi->data_len = m->data_len; > mi->port = m->port; >