Hi Vipin,
This commit should include a more detailed commit message, akin to one I
suggested for the first patch.
For the patch itself:
Reviewed-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
On 1/13/2023 1:08 PM, Vipin P R wrote:
Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Vipin P R <vip...@vmware.com>
Acked-by: Kumara Parameshwaran <kparamesh...@vmware.com>
---
lib/eal/common/eal_common_fbarray.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/eal/common/eal_common_fbarray.c
b/lib/eal/common/eal_common_fbarray.c
index 551bd87..90240e8 100644
--- a/lib/eal/common/eal_common_fbarray.c
+++ b/lib/eal/common/eal_common_fbarray.c
@@ -511,7 +511,7 @@ find_prev_n(const struct rte_fbarray *arr, unsigned int
start, unsigned int n,
* as well, so skip that on next iteration.
*/
ignore_msk = UINT64_MAX << need;
- msk_idx = lookbehind_idx;
+ msk_idx = lookbehind_idx + 1;
break;
}
The unit test code you suggested does not cover this case. I've reduced
this bug to a minimal test case:
1. Allocate fbarray with 256 entries
2. Set idx 63 as used
3. Call rte_fbarray_find_prev_n_free() starting with index 64 and length
of 2
Returned value should be 61, but without the fix it returns -1.
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
