On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 09:29:40AM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 10:22:24AM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > > On 2/16/2026 6:27 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 10:26:31AM +0000, Anatoly Burakov wrote: > > > > Currently, when adding or deleting MAC addresses, we are using > > > > rte_zmalloc followed by an immediate rte_free. This is not needed as > > > > this > > > > memory is not being stored anywhere, so replace it with regular > > > > malloc/free. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_vchnl.c | 4 ++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_vchnl.c > > > > b/drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_vchnl.c > > > > index 55986ef909..19dce17612 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_vchnl.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/intel/iavf/iavf_vchnl.c > > > > @@ -1402,7 +1402,7 @@ iavf_add_del_all_mac_addr(struct iavf_adapter > > > > *adapter, bool add) > > > > } > > > > } > > > > - list = rte_zmalloc("iavf_del_mac_buffer", len, 0); > > > > + list = calloc(1, len); > > > > > > Given the loop above has a threshold set for IAVF_AQ_BUF_SZ, maybe a > > > static > > > buffer of that fixed size might be better? > > > > That size is 4 kilobytes, so I agree that we can use one buffer rather than > > constantly allocating/deallocating things, it'll still have to be > > dynamically allocated. > > > I still would use a stack variable myself. 4k really isn't that big > nowadays. > 4k is also PATH_MAX, and we use stack arrays of PATH_MAX size everywhere in DPDK, so I think we can assume that it's an ok size to use as a stack variable.
/Bruce
