From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com (mail-pa0-f51.google.com [209.85.220.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781F22E81 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 10:35:43 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id uo6so10968750pac.1 for ; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:35:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=igel-co-jp.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/Dhqx3eEZ8cmd5LpkAPqXZqBrVy+WRK0gEDbZZuMES4=; b=iAvQzWQtLSrpPt1Cz+xm+xJ82U7ZWcPnbsSA49HnNpCqsNNldBQ9ryhra59/Hma73q 6lzEGPjTS6w4+3O4N/pNIiRZc4cst7/j1IbkU0vzdjPl4njYvE4mcEiB8xBPACpdZa/6 VUBXDfcCDVeWw09CyxJ2qQbhUK6b7K1WBRHPTlL8/pSeU3DROy+FBNJUdvsUOGe/g1Ha RkCDIj5VO67mmzggoDVsb8qU/D4/XZUqBx9wmwv2pD0l4bmLg4a3SkJxO8peLQVBrbQ+ gQSH9SXVmHf3hESrFZLYGKux3LwXGLDilcMqN1Vl+laRfi4HyKZqobEe88paFXn6Y+H+ leHg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/Dhqx3eEZ8cmd5LpkAPqXZqBrVy+WRK0gEDbZZuMES4=; b=EsNhizgd9RUalzlVbC2IyNh0QjpSpR6n46RUbFr8A6kxKlQLrcyDzDMj+sri6ap1Pn meJ4c7zrz3LrcKWm+YCnihA0HdmvlIkwc8xaF4vKqU/xPwWoxJ+FqO+kGrq7TcoDVS3C 79mh0LLBxpVBscZX5v/7ky1f5X/XEfKsAjwtPzRRPKucG4F6RjW7hUjzW9YKb49vL2jm sLmnHMgzFetrCM3WCxhFmATIDRh6hFI15LFYzMzCsWdkSgZzAFEbx1o4rNWiqv1KL+u5 05B47zdisieokjPWdRb003TJy6WroaUYMlui+IHQlDcW2OF7CMmrVlw2E3eKYfQihte6 IYfQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORhlT9T0q95fHGMO9y+rZ3wEAC8pC2JoWnt+qdC1zy5XjIZ/TsoeKHKuE80xA3f3Q== X-Received: by 10.66.101.3 with SMTP id fc3mr767338pab.2.1454492142854; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:35:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.16.129.101] (napt.igel.co.jp. [219.106.231.132]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id tv6sm8453811pab.4.2016.02.03.01.35.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:35:42 -0800 (PST) To: dev@dpdk.org, yuanhan.liu@intel.com, ann.zhuangyanying@huawei.com References: <1448355603-21275-2-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp> <1454411922-5597-3-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp> <20160202234319.GA925@sivlogin002.ir.intel.com> <56B1B0C1.2070500@igel.co.jp> <20160203092422.GA22202@sivlogin002.ir.intel.com> From: Tetsuya Mukawa Message-ID: <56B1C9EC.3030701@igel.co.jp> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 18:35:40 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160203092422.GA22202@sivlogin002.ir.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] vhost: Add VHOST PMD 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: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 09:35:43 -0000 On 2016/02/03 18:24, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 04:48:17PM +0900, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote: >> On 2016/02/03 8:43, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 08:18:42PM +0900, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote: >>>> + >>>> + /* find an ethdev entry */ >>>> + eth_dev = rte_eth_dev_allocated(name); >>>> + if (eth_dev == NULL) >>>> + return -ENODEV; >>>> + >>>> + internal = eth_dev->data->dev_private; >>>> + >>>> + rte_free(vring_states[internal->port_id]); >>>> + vring_states[internal->port_id] = NULL; >>>> + >>>> + pthread_mutex_lock(&internal_list_lock); >>>> + TAILQ_REMOVE(&internals_list, internal, next); >>>> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&internal_list_lock); >>>> + >>>> + eth_dev_stop(eth_dev); >>>> + >>>> + if ((internal) && (internal->dev_name)) >>> if "internal" can be NULL, above internal->port_id reference will crash, if can't be NULL no need to check here. >>> >>> >> Hi Ferruh, > Hi Tetsuya, > >> I guess if internal is NULL, "internal->dev_name" will not be accessed. > Sure. > >> So it may be ok to stay above code. >> > But I mean 8,9 lines above there is an access to internal->port_id, either internal NULL check should be before that access or removed completely. I've got your point. Thanks! Tetsuya