From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FCBA19F5 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:24:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2017 06:24:39 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,194,1486454400"; d="scan'208";a="1124860191" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.122]) ([10.237.220.122]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2017 06:24:37 -0700 To: Adrien Mazarguil , Gaetan Rivet References: <20170316110409.GO3790@6wind.com> Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Nelio Laranjeiro , "Legacy, Allain" , Stephen Hemminger From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <8dfd3eff-5326-5561-396a-11482ba3cc87@intel.com> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:24:36 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170316110409.GO3790@6wind.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] net/mlx4: add port parameter 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: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:24:40 -0000 On 3/16/2017 11:04 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 04:40:06PM +0100, Gaetan Rivet wrote: >> Most ConnectX-3 adapters expose two physical ports on a single PCI bus >> address. >> >> Add a new port parameter allowing the user to choose >> either or both physical ports to be used by the application. >> >> This parameter is used as follows: >> >> Selecting only the second port: >> -w 00:00.0,port=1 >> >> Selecting both ports: >> -w 00:00.0,port=0,port=1 >> >> If no parameter is given, the default behavior is unchanged: all ports >> are probed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gaetan Rivet > > I think this patch is good as is. Whatever value results from users > specifying random characters as argument to the port parameter is their > problem, as long as the resulting value is verified to be within bounds, > it's fine. > > I'm not saying that checking all possible failure modes of strtoul() is > useless, just that it seems overkill in this specific case. Using atoi() > without any error checking would have been perfectly fine as well. > > Acked-by: Adrien Mazarguil Hi Adrien, Gaetan, Are all comments addressed for this patch? It looks like discussion is going on? Thanks, ferruh