On 7/16/2019 3:35 PM, Zhang, Xiao wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yigit, Ferruh
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 10:26 PM
>> To: Zhang, Xiao <xiao.zh...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Wang, Xiao W
>> <xiao.w.w...@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Lu,
>> Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Yang, Qiming <qiming.y...@intel.com>;
>> sta...@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [v2] drivers/net: fix dereference after null check
>> coverity
>>
>> On 7/16/2019 1:19 PM, Zhang, Xiao wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Yigit, Ferruh
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 7:55 PM
>>>> To: Zhang, Xiao <xiao.zh...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>>>> Cc: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Wang, Xiao W
>>>> <xiao.w.w...@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Lu,
>>>> Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Yang, Qiming
>> <qiming.y...@intel.com>;
>>>> sta...@dpdk.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [v2] drivers/net: fix dereference after
>>>> null check coverity
>>>>
>>>> On 7/15/2019 1:15 PM, Xiao Zhang wrote:
>>>>> This patch tries to fix the coverity issues of dereference after
>>>>> null check.
>>>>> The addresses of receive queue start segment for ice, avf, i40e,
>>>>> fm10k and ixgb were not checked before use. Add check to avoid
>>>>> coverity issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> Coverity issue: 343452
>>>>> Coverity issue: 343407
>>>>> Fixes: c68a52b8 ("net/ice: support vector SSE in Rx") Coverity issue:
>>>>> 343447
>>>>> Fixes: 319c421f ("net/avf: enable SSE Rx Tx") Coverity issue: 343422
>>>>> Coverity issue: 343403
>>>>> Fixes: ca74903b ("net/i40e: extract non-x86 specific code from
>>>>> vector
>>>>> driver") Coverity issue: 343416
>>>>> Fixes: fe65e1e1 ("fm10k: add vector scatter Rx") Coverity issue:
>>>>> 13245
>>>>> Fixes: 8a44c15a ("net/ixgbe: extract non-x86 specific code from
>>>>> vector
>>>>> driver")
>>>>> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Zhang <xiao.zh...@intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> In patchwork status of this patch is "Superseded" but I can't find
>>>> the patch that supersedes this patch, is the current status correct?
>>>
>>> Sorry, the status of the patch should be "Rejected", I have updated the
>> status.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for updating, why it is rejected? (self-rejected ?)
>
> Yes, since this issues are for different devices, I was suggested better to
> split the patch base on the device or issue ID.
>
So there will be a new version, if so can you please update the patch status as
"Change requested"?
And I think it is better to make these suggestions publicly, at least put the a
quick summary about the decision, so that other interested parties can be aware
of it and/or comment on it.
