From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18AC845695; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 15:42:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A266427B7; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 15:42:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.144]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D667940A75; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 15:42:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 406D91380217; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:42:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:42:27 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1721742147; x=1721828547; bh=akwVBxT7zf/4k9eqtVhZC/fEGSMbsJmAuyNXdysj6F4=; b= ff+R9yi0kTJZUc/0BQRbffZp8hmO0AW7W216AXDhrUUAiv+3qfPrXZAcYXp0/of6 2ZhcqZf8yQc1qxY8VpenadqDveecrprAvJeIwkDZZlINxma941XaSmV7wft1cIab pyephO6vGanExwD/fkqutCWrTyCvdjUjucD/Y/0xTvMkv5ncKqYi2WK37osUnCXB 9z5xhqi6DTMAzObnWp81sjKpRZr8cDjgEAaiQiyQg6qfsHc/q9quudtLcejGGj1c MzapFXwUEYPvifgwrhyNI75coEqsEBU8uqh0+x2gqkJMHptt9Vu8+6JDAg9hYQJR GvlEItY59sBKSBSxAj9NAA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1721742147; x= 1721828547; bh=akwVBxT7zf/4k9eqtVhZC/fEGSMbsJmAuyNXdysj6F4=; b=o C4Uxb4VxEZoPrEQMyxjF+MHjmVsCEjnJRuMwh0D84VdbWsUR4opRAleQ7kugH/pr rd/3uTJvKrnn0FPDYPlsfWco/1Z/AnY/+SLyzyMPUysFtbVjXI17M/Gtzxga4oMv wvXZukKEJ4r/+uQFvctYOhwLj9hXZWXkimtfjP+WLKAHQzeMCUjft5w6Yhrci9SW DqHkGY0vH75qRwRGD9voMSR1drIzpY2SzbBHDzt7yogMTI92c/1IrG7PjH5mFgym we8GY3G2Dv2Ndf0K2Utn9v8lFZQ2ghPL8zFxDflVYiocECSDSIDAo6zVe0CJ3hDb gp49xjBIOGkKfgixErczw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrheelgdeijecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepjeduveehieevuddutdevfffgtdegkeeuveejffejgedtgeegkefg vdeugfefkeejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthdpnhgspghrtghpthhtoheptd X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:42:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Anatoly Burakov Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Tyler Retzlaff , stable@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] malloc/mp: fix wait condition handling Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 15:42:23 +0200 Message-ID: <2190224.irdbgypaU6@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 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 12/07/2024 13:41, Anatoly Burakov: > From coverity's point of view, it is theoretically possible to have an > infinite wait on a wait condition because while we do check for timeout, > we do not check for whether the event we are waiting for has already > occurred by the time we get to the first cond_wait call (in this case, > it's state of memory request list entry's state being set to COMPLETE). > > This can't really happen as the only time a wait condition is triggered > is when we are receiving a memory event (so the entry we are waiting on > cannot change before wait condition is triggered because it's protected > by a mutex), so either we receive an event and modify entry state, or we > exit wait on a timeout and do not care about request state. However, it's > better to keep coverity happy. > > Coverity issue: 425709 > Fixes: 07dcbfe0101f ("malloc: support multiprocess memory hotplug") > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov Applied, thanks.