Hi,

On 01/27/2016 02:56 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:

Since rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk() is an inline function, it is not part of
the library ABI and should not be listed in the version map.

I assume its inline for performance reasons, but then you lose the
benefits of dynamic linking such as ability to fix bugs and/or improve
itby just updating the library. Since the point of having a bulk API is
to improve performance by reducing the number of calls required, does it
really have to be inline? As in, have you actually measured the
difference between inline and non-inline and decided its worth all the
downsides?

Agree with Panu. It would be interesting to compare the performance
between inline and non inline to decide whether inlining it or not.

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().

Regards,
Olivier