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 BA4AA45D45; Tue, 19 Nov 2024 18:13:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A305F4029B; Tue, 19 Nov 2024 18:13:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from fhigh-a6-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a6-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.157]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39B34028B for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2024 18:13:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from phl-compute-02.internal (phl-compute-02.phl.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4478B1140110; Tue, 19 Nov 2024 12:13:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-02 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-02.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 19 Nov 2024 12:13:19 -0500 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=1732036399; x=1732122799; bh=mRxAklXkv15XKWPoYEU/ndAQeJear5gmudNujKx9u/Q=; b= aRZNaJdeew9107OEnkZBzbWMUTf/1xozZOEK/q0op/B8bA1gkT3r+0kye3595CEK ZvV/mGsY7U32CADaL0RlLDCOTSRWTVoShvCEb8fvlL55JeBZYd5FNI14Bm/BYAuM 3d+tHT+da0l6iVTFFK1LYVuVOFEotiOTcCLBdLzQRFsuwu5LGhSW7FxLbo6aNk6L CY+nVwqRud4MvZYBuX7xbOVvfclyd9V8vY2pevlw3++goFqXqGEgaakKkfDq2aPv uyKKI87IZqFIdCRRfUCOuSVbZEM1uKdEGHDmJecbTO8jc1Jaqa8r9EHE2L0D0hUl zJzdhYhjUXwcyQmay8AaPQ== 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-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1732036399; x= 1732122799; bh=mRxAklXkv15XKWPoYEU/ndAQeJear5gmudNujKx9u/Q=; b=l +llNwURcEvqQUBO9i68/5C/Do8DCduElZK28YGWUYng9haFR08RCFckMRf7t6bPe 2wAxI6Yb8kvlY64byDZSUDGesB/v/DLv4srmh+nBW+KDa8Zdxrx01VuUxWwUfGI6 /vXP9gCEW9PNGpsqyC0HQjTN9yQ/DJBCYdMLOkSO7rmUj8KB19F9QG3ao2qn/m8e yc6tSq4j3r3lToeBEK0Inxcz3AREk6MpDlFOADq/nuFXKYs8MYDyXjNMD+U2vU0q Bu/s0CJib6huWzIO3/orAXX6Jxu5NH65mITKFDz1Rf3egnndodTPeTzHOuv6EYAY gj63nx2KGL6IEmbCUaCOQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefuddrfedvgdeliecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpuffr tefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnth hsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttdejnecu hfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgrshcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlh honhdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepjeduveehieevuddutdevfffgtdegkeeu veejffejgedtgeegkefgvdeugfefkeejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgepudenucfrrg hrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthdpnhgs pghrtghpthhtohepfedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepghdrshhinh hghhesnhigphdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopeguvghvseguphgukhdrohhrghdprhgtphht thhopehsthgvphhhvghnsehnvghtfihorhhkphhluhhmsggvrhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 19 Nov 2024 12:13:18 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Gagandeep Singh Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [v2 3/3] examples/l3fwd: enhance valid ports checking Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 18:13:17 +0100 Message-ID: <3316748.N7aMVyhfb1@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20241113113907.62b4cafe@hermes.local> References: <20240715101458.645014-1-g.singh@nxp.com> <20240806034120.3165295-4-g.singh@nxp.com> <20241113113907.62b4cafe@hermes.local> 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 13/11/2024 20:39, Stephen Hemminger: > On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 09:11:20 +0530 > Gagandeep Singh wrote: > > > The current port ID validation logic in the routes add code has > > two issues: > > > > - It can pass if port ID in route is 31+. > > - It silently skips rules with disabled or invalid > > port IDs > > > > This patch is: > > - Improving the enabled port IDs check logic. > > - Introducing a user option, "exit_on_failure", to control > > the behavior when attempting to add rules for disabled or > > invalid port IDs (either exit or skip) > > - Creating a port ID validation function for use across > > various setup functions > > > > Signed-off-by: Gagandeep Singh > > Patch looks fine, but other changes in the intervening time have > caused conflicts with this patch. Needs to be rebased. Waiting for a rebase please?