[v2,1/4] mbuf: add accessor function for private data area
Checks
Commit Message
Add an inline accessor function to return the starting address of
the private data area in the supplied mbuf.
This allows applications to easily access the private data area between
the struct rte_mbuf and the data buffer in the specified mbuf without
creating private macros or accessor functions.
No checks are made to ensure that a private data area actually exists
in the buffer.
Signed-off-by: Dan Gora <dg@adax.com>
---
lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
Comments
On 06/19/2018 02:35 AM, Dan Gora wrote:
> Add an inline accessor function to return the starting address of
> the private data area in the supplied mbuf.
>
> This allows applications to easily access the private data area between
> the struct rte_mbuf and the data buffer in the specified mbuf without
> creating private macros or accessor functions.
>
> No checks are made to ensure that a private data area actually exists
> in the buffer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Gora <dg@adax.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
Hi Dan,
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 04:35:34PM -0700, Dan Gora wrote:
> Add an inline accessor function to return the starting address of
> the private data area in the supplied mbuf.
>
> This allows applications to easily access the private data area between
> the struct rte_mbuf and the data buffer in the specified mbuf without
> creating private macros or accessor functions.
>
> No checks are made to ensure that a private data area actually exists
> in the buffer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Gora <dg@adax.com>
Thank you for this patch.
Few (late) comments to your previous questions:
- about rte_mbuf vs rte_pktmbuf, as Andrew said pktmbuf was used in
the past when there was a ctrlmbuf. This one has been removed now, so
mbuf should be used.
- I agree that removing the test (m->priv_size == 0) is better for
the reasons mentionned, and also because it would add a test in the
dataplane area, which would sometimes be useless: the application create
the mbuf pools, so it can know that all mbufs have a priv area.
Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
26/06/2018 09:39, Olivier Matz:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 04:35:34PM -0700, Dan Gora wrote:
> > Add an inline accessor function to return the starting address of
> > the private data area in the supplied mbuf.
> >
> > This allows applications to easily access the private data area between
> > the struct rte_mbuf and the data buffer in the specified mbuf without
> > creating private macros or accessor functions.
> >
> > No checks are made to ensure that a private data area actually exists
> > in the buffer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Gora <dg@adax.com>
>
> Thank you for this patch.
>
> Few (late) comments to your previous questions:
>
> - about rte_mbuf vs rte_pktmbuf, as Andrew said pktmbuf was used in
> the past when there was a ctrlmbuf. This one has been removed now, so
> mbuf should be used.
>
> - I agree that removing the test (m->priv_size == 0) is better for
> the reasons mentionned, and also because it would add a test in the
> dataplane area, which would sometimes be useless: the application create
> the mbuf pools, so it can know that all mbufs have a priv area.
>
>
> Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Series applied
@@ -728,6 +728,24 @@ rte_mbuf_to_baddr(struct rte_mbuf *md)
return buffer_addr;
}
+/**
+ * Return the starting address of the private data area embedded in
+ * the given mbuf.
+ *
+ * Note that no check is made to ensure that a private data area
+ * actually exists in the supplied mbuf.
+ *
+ * @param md
+ * The pointer to the mbuf.
+ * @return
+ * The starting address of the private data area of the given mbuf.
+ */
+static inline void * __rte_experimental
+rte_mbuf_to_priv(struct rte_mbuf *m)
+{
+ return RTE_PTR_ADD(m, sizeof(struct rte_mbuf));
+}
+
/**
* Returns TRUE if given mbuf is cloned by mbuf indirection, or FALSE
* otherwise.