On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 12:23:58PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> 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
>
Marking as rejected in patchwork
