From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77E922BA7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:32:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21])
 by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2017 02:32:15 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,258,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="33124099"
Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162])
 by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2017 02:32:14 -0800
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 18:34:28 +0800
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Message-ID: <20170120103428.GY10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1484899493-11051-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <2005966.sVKUI0LeEs@xps13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2005966.sVKUI0LeEs@xps13>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: fix wrong memset
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 10:32:16 -0000

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:20:06AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2017-01-20 16:04, Yuanhan Liu:
> > Fix an silly error by auto-complete while managing the merge conflicts.
> > It's the eth_dev_data (but not eth_dev) entry should be memset.
> > 
> > Fixes: d948f596fee2 ("ethdev: fix port data mismatched in multiple process model")
> 
> You should describe the impact on this bug.

Honestly, I don't know. I didn't met any issue while testing vhost.
Maybe Ferruh knows what might be wrong, since it's him spotted this
bug?

> It will be helpful for those testing the RC1.
> 
> > -	memset(&rte_eth_devices[port_id], 0, sizeof(*eth_dev->data));
> > +	memset(&rte_eth_dev_data[port_id], 0, sizeof(struct rte_eth_dev_data));
> 
> The title should be contain the scope of the bug.
> I suggest "fix data reset when allocating port".

Yeah, that's better. Thanks.

	--yliu