From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (xvm-189-124.dc0.ghst.net [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911DEA09FF; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:21:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A84B140E49; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:21:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EABA340FA7; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:21:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3FDFD37; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 16:21:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 06 Jan 2021 16:21:55 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm3; bh= uZxnEEyMYghXAbGtTM4Rc7LE1ET0QQy37aRm48vPLUw=; b=l3n9QN4k61xEl2Sj Drq+wECzbNaoGg8ukdaJWDVusc+GDdM4NrJ8ZFSfGsFMsNIzM5giejqnlTF2J01z sIvpEiIa2NYdSTOdofuLh1T7wi9wnfj+RXjgWZr8qxVGSXjiRXL2ynauFxnq3jJN yKTYGe4CFPJA+5ZVs2RtEjN6BB7HhKGhQ76ceSXgrWBY6CIrkyG2TdTz5MqwriWI YKuEaVD5M5vCjJduEmNMtU7WAak0AJ0inIsK5lY2/P6vhPfIhTcGRaTJfxVNe/H4 QL9ovz1spoqfOwLRw4zi7PAXbMvIdN9cuK0U3CqpXBQa/KCjBn85sgawHvLKyN3P JdOCjQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=uZxnEEyMYghXAbGtTM4Rc7LE1ET0QQy37aRm48vPL Uw=; b=UZYeemoP/sE1NsgPHjvG/2DqNrUXpgni3BNB7bXINrdC9DQSOnQw0s5AQ ELNHfi+TNTMv/OcBjCgJ6O4ImRR4Ba60aBlpyO81pyMUPAky0Y0DbN1ZRt3DZ2Cz /htwcsZOXgmc9BzxhMbQrKMp4HDsx9tLeoBxA8PecN51zBvRhieAaPcmF9XdqYp6 szEi/JSHNuMYstlKkEBoTuBf6e0xcFkL9qPgMY24aQcDi87lR5XtIy/Nyf9ldJZJ xavsgUK9cnX2Esb7n/A56ToPe7FrnFN/EW/dr8xXyoj9Td5OlBebajThamBdxm1t 0jhn9sZBrTuWsc1gPbroMxgyP4d/g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrvdegtddgheefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1016A1080059; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 16:21:52 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Dekel Peled Cc: viacheslavo@nvidia.com, shahafs@nvidia.com, matan@nvidia.com, dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 22:21:51 +0100 Message-ID: <1981304.3GL16s52rr@thomas> In-Reply-To: <670e2f1c1644f8722b707d5f4d69eb460868317e.1609682638.git.dekelp@nvidia.com> References: <670e2f1c1644f8722b707d5f4d69eb460868317e.1609682638.git.dekelp@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix flow check hairpin split X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 03/01/2021 16:18, Dekel Peled: > Previously, the identification of hairpin queue was done using > mlx5_rxq_get_type() function. > Recent patch replaced it with use of mlx5_rxq_get_hairpin_conf(), > and check of the return value conf != NULL. > The case of return value is NULL (queue is not hairpin) was not handled. > As result, non-hairpin flows were wrongly handled. > This patch adds the required check for return value is NULL. > > Fixes: 509f8470de55 ("net/mlx5: do not split hairpin flow in explicit mode") > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled > Acked-by: Matan Azrad > --- > - if (conf != NULL && !!conf->tx_explicit) > + if (!conf || !!conf->tx_explicit) The DPDK coding style recommends explicit comparison. Here it would be: if (conf == NULL || conf->tx_explicit != 0)