From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 803D78EA0 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:14:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2015 00:14:20 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,706,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="830994591" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2015 00:14:17 -0700 Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:14:23 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20151020071423.GU3115@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1444369572-1157-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <1444369572-1157-6-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <2663202.cvIv1Wzbri@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2663202.cvIv1Wzbri@xps13> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: dev@dpdk.org, marcel@redhat.com, "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 05/13] vhost-user: handle VHOST_USER_RESET_OWNER correctly X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:14:21 -0000 On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:03:48AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-10-09 13:46, Yuanhan Liu: > > Destroy corresponding device when a VHOST_USER_RESET_OWNER message is > > received, otherwise, the vhost-switch would still try to access vq > > of that device, which results to SIGSEG fault, and let vhost-switch > > crash in the end. > > It is a fix, so the title should look like: > vhost: fix crash when receiving VHOST_USER_RESET_OWNER > and there should be a "Fixes:" tag. Got it. > > Please could you also review the related patches from Jerome Jutteau? > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/project/dpdk/list/?submitter=354 I've already reviewed v1 in the first time, giving him a series ACK. However, I had a minor comment, which will not affect my ACK, and he updated his patch to v2. Maybe I should make another ACK in this v2. --yliu