From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772721B12B for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:57:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 819033DF; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:57:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:57:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=g5i8aknT/FSm/l7HrJdJVGRHc6 wJ+LN/mKjXSGf74ws=; b=Y0g4dIiimR2Tm01/Pk4zgnEpAW7QeSqEqVxjMjKpmy OCn/rRb1QbUF2crnoZjecMCyWPmNaux+0AVjg7/5BNsS372R9DVkr7fNOXLEML9c 13wD7wvqcMmYtMItuZsjx+LrdBZHvig+2YBN4v1TXYW8yOxFYrjyjhvYZ/6AfmdM Y= 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-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=g5i8ak nT/FSm/l7HrJdJVGRHc6wJ+LN/mKjXSGf74ws=; b=nNLCcRS5bF5UT4bJ1kTyHc puVeN1kpyqjIVbVkoKdmEtFasWkkexJHZ8owFt5Q92y2lgCEFFHfJKYQkDRgxeR9 cSnA14RXO+h8IilM4Zrmyl+GMId0cS7GwP1tndliixTm+Qj61KZncFvbhB8dnI1y 6DSw3GQMKfwAt/mauRhigoH/m04MCkBYr1vC7hnwGyK/twLjQDfsRE/yPt0mHgN0 XDgz1T9+Gh/ebjix6pavvmQgkI6I/H1CCipgnFP4m1VVgKIFrF2eJLgJVUpiV7/E NAZrGUg7Iw0JBWFQ0GQJ0o1oMJQuiBJu0bLsIneGCb4MPHOi3/PoOeY5LH8bJf1w == X-ME-Proxy: X-ME-Sender: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3E522102DE; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:57:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Luca Boccassi , Konstantin Ananyev Cc: dev@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:57:14 +0200 Message-ID: <2653701.FErX7ZCc7E@xps> In-Reply-To: <1537878167.10481.46.camel@debian.org> References: <1535129226-25510-1-git-send-email-konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> <1912621.YvyjYky8PI@xps> <1537878167.10481.46.camel@debian.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] acl: fix invalid results for rule with zero priority X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 12:57:18 -0000 25/09/2018 14:22, Luca Boccassi: > On Sun, 2018-09-16 at 11:56 +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 24/08/2018 18:47, Konstantin Ananyev: > > > If user specifies priority=0 for some of ACL rules > > > that can cause rte_acl_classify to return wrong results. > > > The reason is that priority zero is used internally for no-match > > > nodes. > > > See more details at: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79. > > > The simplest way to overcome the issue is just not allow zero > > > to be a valid priority for the rule. > > > > > > Fixes: dc276b5780c2 ("acl: new library") > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev > > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > Applied with below title, thanks > > acl: forbid rule with priority zero > > Hi, > > This patch is marked for stable, but it changes an enum in a public > header so it looks like an ABI breakage? Have I got it wrong? - RTE_ACL_MIN_PRIORITY = 0, + RTE_ACL_MIN_PRIORITY = 1, In my understanding, the change is not breaking the ABI because the old minimal value (0) can still be used, with the same side effect. The new value is just removing a side effect for newly compiled apps. Konstantin, am I right?