Javier,
That was just our guess, you might have the leak somewhere else...
Andriy
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Javier Coleto Fern?ndez
<javicoleto44 at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is exactly what I'm doing at the moment, but the free count (both the
> rte_mempool_free_count() and rte_ring_free_count()) keeps increasing
> nonetheless.
>
> Regards,
> Javier
>
> 2016-04-18 17:57 GMT+02:00 Andriy Berestovskyy <aber at semihalf.com>:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Javier Coleto Fern?ndez
>> <javicoleto44 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Basing on what you say, is that return value supposed to be less than
>> > 'n' in
>> > case the ring is filled up or do I have to check the ring size before
>> > calling rte_eth_tx_burst()?
>>
>> You just have to check the return value and free the unsent mbufs.
>> Here is an example:
>>
>> ret = rte_eth_tx_burst(port, queueid, m_table, n);
>> if (unlikely(ret < n)) {
>> do {
>> rte_pktmbuf_free(m_table[ret]);
>> } while (++ret < n);
>> }
