Hi Andrew/Igor,
A effective test case is missing for this, can you please add a test
case? Otherwise it looks good.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Andrew Rybchenko
> Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2020 9:36 AM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Igor Romanov <igor.roma...@oktetlabs.ru>; sta...@dpdk.org; Harry van
> Haaren <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] service: fix wrong lcore indexes
Nit, 'indices' would be better?
^^^^^^^
>
> From: Igor Romanov <igor.roma...@oktetlabs.ru>
>
> The service core list is populated, but not used. Incorrect lcore states are
> examined for a service.
>
> Use the populated list to iterate over service cores.
>
> Fixes: e30dd31847d2 ("service: add mechanism for quiescing")
> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Igor Romanov <igor.roma...@oktetlabs.ru>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>
> ---
> lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> index 6123a2124d..e2795f857e 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> @@ -422,7 +422,7 @@ rte_service_may_be_active(uint32_t id)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> for (i = 0; i < lcore_count; i++) {
> - if (lcore_states[i].service_active_on_lcore[id])
> + if (lcore_states[ids[i]].service_active_on_lcore[id])
> return 1;
> }
>
> --
> 2.17.1
