From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas@monjalon.net>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
[66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3651B1B3A5
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:28:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB11121841;
Thu, 11 Oct 2018 06:27:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 11 Oct 2018 06:27:59 -0400
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=mesmtp;
bh=hvL9xsgayTt/7veK2PpbSvBQIMKROfqnoKKGYII7tqM=; b=Xjd+fnoEX4MH
ZsPIAh47deiqX80ALQzfGzp8uX6xftk6Y9AGet6co+XuP5ocymXlwLz9Mp/TC7Zx
rmy+No2nXv+nqEGU40dLzSRDY4v76tchh7R6eil/J0+UXSQ49sehtNFnnSjRf3M1
vN4y2sorgvvUWb923Fz80hwR/PIBtdc=
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=hvL9xsgayTt/7veK2PpbSvBQIMKROfqnoKKGYII7t
qM=; b=o1a0kHXCg0EEtA7fzavlQhtYuk63Q+h1fSbNz0XIEgg9iMBGx1SiXKOas
1HkIPkUr0bw0N0SYe2sMsICYx64BiHI+xwdEpSvFsrLHSTar+dv9qszoXfS7Irsq
IHPDUYRpsV4+q3y3eceSXC+0yoqnD/j7KZRuYk9TAR6nwSz2kjGRjx2BMMrsDB1P
kVrSNW1r7m8D51xhi1woSgfPrxKa5XkuUmCLFAqC8yep33akJVKeenYXjGJABFmi
p8hp0vJ2wZ/VGIqm2KV1Be7O6au+BsS6yig0Dl+TJiJC8A1YduF630vqhhuboD0D
9HDaPkdgPtu877NlhTVDN6dopFxjQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:ryW_Wxvc4vUSUFHIjk7PkfyWYfHfQwGEzodp6BdFekOaB-kyvgCk5w>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:ryW_W88n5pE_JWu_phpdwgdy5fvjhIpV0PKvq7ayj87evYYX9SAilg>
<xmx:ryW_W6EAgqPFGN8WpbqQlFDbAW8Ioj3PXZGmga_n0goR3NrwKtiSiA>
<xmx:ryW_WyPRg7hZe8C9uGiYvTr49yf1vFCHUIDzvcmMKzsk_6en2SY2pw>
<xmx:ryW_W8cQXMeco1wKXHJotLb2lAR0V0ysdBcwgFAkdnvaDZERE6Ko0Q>
<xmx:ryW_W_sYWyiDsuNLnXpQIhClOzsbbqOedhmo5efcKDzyGcQo6GZAyQ>
<xmx:ryW_W89zE0fIKyCheiUqgV_0wgrC4EGYT4n3IJV-UsSnr01O3OmSWg>
Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184])
by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2A3CFE44D4;
Thu, 11 Oct 2018 06:27:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, maxime.coquelin@redhat.com, zhihong.wang@intel.com,
tiwei.bie@intel.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com, brian.russell@intl.att.com
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:27:57 +0200
Message-ID: <2276842.FSxJgd8eX6@xps>
In-Reply-To: <20180828101240.12597-2-bluca@debian.org>
References: <20180827165240.28322-1-bluca@debian.org>
<20180828101240.12597-1-bluca@debian.org>
<20180828101240.12597-2-bluca@debian.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] net/virtio: fix PCI config err
handling
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:28:00 -0000
28/08/2018 12:12, Luca Boccassi:
> From: Brian Russell <brussell@brocade.com>
>
> In virtio_read_caps and vtpci_msix_detect, rte_pci_read_config returns
> the number of bytes read from PCI config or < 0 on error.
> If less than the expected number of bytes are read then log the
> failure and return rather than carrying on with garbage.
>
> Fixes: 6ba1f63b5ab0 ("virtio: support specification 1.0")
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Russell <brussell@brocade.com>
> Signed-off-by: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
> ---
> v2: handle additional rte_pci_read_config incomplete reads
> v3: do not handle rte_pci_read_config of virtio cap, added in v2,
> as it's less clear what the right thing to do there is
> v4: do a more robust check - first check what the vendor is, and
> skip the cap entirely if it's not what we are looking for.
> v5: fetch only 2 flags bytes if the vndr is PCI_CAP_ID_MSIX
> v6: fix 32bit build by changing the printf format specifier, fix patch title
Tiwei did a comment on v5 and provided his Reviewed-by.
Is it OK to apply v6 with its tag?
All is fixed?