On Tue, 2018-09-25 at 14:34 +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > Hi Luca, > > > > > On Sun, 2018-09-16 at 11:56 +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 24/08/2018 18:47, Konstantin Ananyev: > > > > If user specifies priority=0 for some of ACL rules > > > > that can cause rte_acl_classify to return wrong results. > > > > The reason is that priority zero is used internally for no- > > > > match > > > > nodes. > > > > See more details at: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79. > > > > The simplest way to overcome the issue is just not allow zero > > > > to be a valid priority for the rule. > > > > > > > > Fixes: dc276b5780c2 ("acl: new library") > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@intel.com > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org > > > > > > Applied with below title, thanks > > > acl: forbid rule with priority zero > > > > Hi, > > > > This patch is marked for stable, but it changes an enum in a public > > header > > Yes it does. > > > so it looks like an ABI breakage? Have I got it wrong? > > Strictly speaking - yes, but priority=0 is invalid value with current > implementation. > I don't think someone uses it - as in that case acl library simply > wouldn't work > correctly. > Konstantin
Ok, I'll include this patch in 16.11.9 then, thanks for clarifying. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
