Hi Bruce, Could it be fixed later? If not, it should be documented. I faced this issued today, and found that dpdk changed my last arg. In my mind, dpdk should not change the argv[last], which will confuse the users.
Best Regards, Ziye Yang -----Original Message----- From: Richardson, Bruce Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 7:25 PM To: Yang, Ziye <ziye.yang at intel.com> Cc: dev at dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] librte_eal: fix wrong args operation in eal_parse_args On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:28:21PM +0800, Ziye Yang wrote: > This patch is used to fix wrong operation on user input args. > eal_parse_args function should not operate the args passed by the > user. If the element in argv is generated by malloc function, changing > it will cause memory issues when free the args. > > Signed-off-by: Ziye Yang <ziye.yang at intel.com> > --- > lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal.c | 2 -- > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c | 2 -- > 2 files changed, 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal.c > b/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal.c index 06bfd4e..0eef92d 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal.c > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal.c > @@ -420,8 +420,6 @@ eal_parse_args(int argc, char **argv) > goto out; > } > > - if (optind >= 0) > - argv[optind-1] = prgname; > ret = optind-1; > > out: > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c > b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c > index 8aafd51..ba9d1ac 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c > @@ -658,8 +658,6 @@ eal_parse_args(int argc, char **argv) > goto out; > } > > - if (optind >= 0) > - argv[optind-1] = prgname; > ret = optind-1; > > out: This is a behaviour change in DPDK. The behaviour has always been that after calling eal init, you can update your argv/argc values by the number of args parsed and then parse your app args as normal, since argv[0] will still point to your program name. While I agree that having the current behaviour may cause some problems, changing this behaviour may break applications that have been written to use the existing behaviour. Since it is only the last EAL parameter arg that is modified, I think it would be acceptable to have the behaviour well documented and then expect any app to store a second copy of the pointer to be modified if it is needed for a subsequent free call, for example. /Bruce
