From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF06959
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:09:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hmsreliant.think-freely.org
 ([2001:470:8:a08:7aac:c0ff:fec2:933b] helo=localhost)
 by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63)
 (envelope-from <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>)
 id 1Y0soe-0005fd-C8; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:09:34 -0500
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:09:26 -0500
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Message-ID: <20141216140926.GD13806@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
References: <1418736437-30585-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com>
 <2281526.Jgy67gTqhP@xps13> <20141216135006.GA11716@bricha3-MOBL3>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20141216135006.GA11716@bricha3-MOBL3>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--)
X-Spam-Status: No
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: limit port mask bits to
 RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:09:37 -0000

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 01:50:06PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 02:40:09PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2014-12-16 13:27, Bruce Richardson:
> > > The port mask parsing in testpmd allowed up to 64 bits to be processed,
> > > even if RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS is set to a max of 32. Fix this by only
> > > processing up to min(RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS,64) bits of the mask.
> > [...]
> > > -	for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < 64 && i < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; i++) {
> > 
> > Why not use RTE_MIN?
> > 
> > -- 
> > Thomas
> 
> Because this works equally well, and the change is simpler and clearer IMHO.
> However, if you feel very strongly about it, I can change it to use RTE_MIN
> instead. :-)
> 
> /Bruce
> 

Please do, checking the same variable for being less than 2 different values
isn't common practice.  Its common, and far more readable to use a min function
as Thomas indicates.  It also saves you doing an extra comparison every loop
iteration.

Neil