From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f48.google.com (mail-lf0-f48.google.com [209.85.215.48]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EFC62B9D for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 14:55:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lf0-f48.google.com with SMTP id g62so61054259lfe.3 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 05:55:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=U6x6p4ywkzU4Velv06/MVY52BPAEVe7usHdfwg+9Bc8=; b=lciLarYRxnRTtPLHREYpZ8JBXn0kVqrTn0dn3JEHAxJcE64YI/rgIQMdN5q1Jzq6Yw 1FKOuhvyrhpulsc0zS5vssVfhehMl601JvW0vm6WdjF7J7yj0NAbm98no/kcrgX1SeP7 VgwuX7m1CmT20iY5vMCju1p4oyyLyPBxEw1EdyGMSxVWpFGt8sDrztBMQaeREsyoR9p9 8lfnO7V3+bLO0Dvucpg5g4gObPHHRHKmMEEfHYQacRFk0l4yz6lUQys7baZRjU9JGJse B9vRDCsRFM/tbIukmkZGdSvB2KXte+YP6UCNIbOFEP8q+sKep1rRJMX3OuabMqDlVXAz 2eZg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=U6x6p4ywkzU4Velv06/MVY52BPAEVe7usHdfwg+9Bc8=; b=X1MvVE/ulWo5KMMIMa+TcIsaVUDtwmTr7sizZ5Y7f+GPB3wCBq6X5HSYxzJNZ4Xcff 5iD6AnEszZ/ZMa+JgMmzP4wf6gvDNmIWxW5wTpzdYE7YS3Z+bwW1Q/0/K9erNmZFjh5I v+1bNQwO1kTnCk1JQuVbTaRMO2N/uBlKVk9R8piJgPDEbTvTp0ZSdlTFcuplEmvZUb/p ttSxWgyskFdFTNdB8CmyDe3Y61CpdnAfvrYYt8TiFV4p9UjarzBO2N6gHAW7pcse6Nvq mbrG87xpl7rRcbnDfeL5z8fGjcnAnH9wTIPaHyFoNOj3CLmXFCVA+COdsP2PMhGYAcB1 kLqw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLz45kkothSPvHmbP1/9eF1eCteIM6fepdESHcJu7d120kBbEuN1vkLwglW5QoWRXGc X-Received: by 10.25.126.6 with SMTP id z6mr21732274lfc.155.1469105701134; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 05:55:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 78sm1732964lfv.39.2016.07.21.05.55.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Jul 2016 05:55:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Mrozowicz, SlawomirX" , "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, david.marchand@6wind.com Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 14:54:59 +0200 Message-ID: <2952281.ce24Bjh3Nh@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <158888A50F43E34AAE179517F56C97455CD010@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1466088738-16990-1-git-send-email-slawomirx.mrozowicz@intel.com> <93a9aba2-4fd0-ea57-18bc-b794ecb91b92@intel.com> <158888A50F43E34AAE179517F56C97455CD010@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] eal: out-of-bounds write 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: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:55:01 -0000 2016-07-21 12:01, Mrozowicz, SlawomirX: > Hi Thomas, >=20 > As I understand Sergio suggested to come back to the solution similar= to v1. > Could you comment or better take decision which solution should be ap= plied, please. >=20 > Best Regards, > S=C5=82awomir=20 >=20 >=20 > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio > >On 20/06/2016 11:09, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >> 2016-06-20 10:38, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: > >>> On 20/06/2016 10:14, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>>> +=09=09RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, > >>>>> +=09=09=09"All memory segments exhausted by IVSHMEM. " > >>>> There is no evidence that it is related to IVSHMEM. > >>>> "Not enough memory segments." would be more appropriate. > >>> Actually we would hit this issue when all memsegs have been used = by > >IVSHMEM. > >>> So I think the message is accurate. > >> I think it's saner to avoid mixing "potential root cause of a use > >> case" and "accurate description of the error". > >> One day, the root cause could be different and the message will be= come > >wrong. > >> Here there is not enough memory segment. > >> > > > >Right. > >So the whole point of doing the check before the loop was to display= the error > >message with its specific cause. > > > >I would think that if the code changes and the message is not accura= te then it > >should also be updated. > > > >So if folks prefer a more generic error message probably we don't ne= ed the > >check before the loop and just change the check condition inside the= loop that > >would end up printing the generic error message (after the loop). > > > >Basically v1 would do that. > >http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12241/ At this point of 16.07 we can apply the v1 if you agree. The message about IVSHMEM will be totally wrong when the ivshmem specif= ic code will be removed. If we need more error messages, feel free to send another patch.