On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 01:04:33PM +0300, Artem Novikov wrote:
> The Rx rearm failure path assigns fake mbufs through rxp, but rxp is the
> address of the mbuf field in a single software ring entry.
>
> Use the software ring array for indexed access so pointer arithmetic is
> done on struct ci_rx_entry instead of on the address of a field.
>
> Fixes: 773cbaf2ad38 ("net/intel: avoid allocating from mempool directly")
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
>
> Signed-off-by: Artem Novikov <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/net/intel/common/rx_vec_x86.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/intel/common/rx_vec_x86.h
> b/drivers/net/intel/common/rx_vec_x86.h
> index 8d497e7196..9670a21fa4 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/intel/common/rx_vec_x86.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/intel/common/rx_vec_x86.h
> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ _ci_rxq_rearm_get_bufs(struct ci_rx_queue *rxq)
> const __m128i zero = _mm_setzero_si128();
>
> for (i = 0; i < CI_VPMD_DESCS_PER_LOOP; i++) {
> - rxp[i] = &rxq->fake_mbuf;
> + rxq->sw_ring[rxq->rxrearm_start + i].mbuf =
> &rxq->fake_mbuf;
> _mm_store_si128(RTE_CAST_PTR(__m128i *,
> &rxdp[i]), zero);
> }
The existing code here is correct, because the SW ring elements are just 1
mbuf in themselves. While the change you propose does make things "more
correct" from a theoretical viewpoint, I would prefer to keep the existing
code because it means that the assignments to both HW and SW ring are done
similarly, by indexing into rxdp[i] and rxp[i].
/Bruce
> }
> --
> 2.43.0
>
