On 5/21/2018 9:24 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 04:25:15PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 18/05/2018 19:06, Ferruh Yigit:
>>> On 5/16/2018 4:41 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
>>>> Like original commit mentioned below, this fix synchronizes flow rule copy
>>>> function with testpmd's own implementation following "app/testpmd: fix copy
>>>> of raw flow item (revisited)".
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: d0ad8648b1c5 ("ethdev: fix shallow copy of flow API RSS action")
>>>> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>>>> Cc: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com>
>>>
>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>
>>> What do you suggest about this one?
>>> Scope is limited to rte_flow but still many features are now relies on
>>> rte_flow,
>>> what is your comment on getting this in rc5?
>>
>> We need to know exactly what is broken.
>> If nothing serious, it can wait 18.08.
>>
>> Adrien, please can you describe the use case, the issue and the impact?
>
> A prior patch [1] (applied as "app/testpmd: fix copy of raw flow item"),
> addresses a crash in testpmd's flow copy function.
>
> The first patch of the present series [2] addresses remaining issues with
> its behavior which is, in fact, what caused the original issue.
>
> While both patches focus on testpmd, rte_flow also exposes its own public
> copy function with the exact same code that breaks when encountering a RAW
> pattern item. Primary users for this function are bonding and failsafe
> PMDs.
>
> This patch therefore addresses both [1] and [2] at once for rte_flow_copy().
Hi Adrien,
What is the effect of _not_ getting this patch, just trying to understand if
this is something to get for this release or postpone to next one.
Thanks,
ferruh
>
> [1] "app/testpmd: fix invalid memory access"
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-May/100364.html
>
> [2] "app/testpmd: fix copy of raw flow item (revisited)"
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-May/101994.html
>
