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 DE35FA034F; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:12:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617CD40041; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:12:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8415C4003E for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:12:25 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1631261544; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NCHqEM6pASo4vkA1XhX/qRZDDEkpITujIc8tR8L1v0w=; b=cgc9Ee9f6lhTps+PYLVqzcDKmwXsfqOUtiQdXXdu58vyPBoIB+t5kxZIye/zSxOrGua7oy XJVknj6/8xpAu5/Nrb+cXY6xtdMkSFBqWsMT8UzlV9IJcfFsuMhZdHkfjm3jKWJ2OCKTKg rx1pknWN/WDCyzQ7f+eCq/HScDIISVs= Received: from mail-lf1-f72.google.com (mail-lf1-f72.google.com [209.85.167.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-473-Bxq90Hw-Nc6_MUQNfaQx5g-1; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 04:12:23 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Bxq90Hw-Nc6_MUQNfaQx5g-1 Received: by mail-lf1-f72.google.com with SMTP id bp18-20020a056512159200b003eb84833c98so452032lfb.14 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 01:12:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NCHqEM6pASo4vkA1XhX/qRZDDEkpITujIc8tR8L1v0w=; b=vgbb7nNBOErxM4rOlWfMqyKVHhrwIGRtR17uaYhK0VC2IUa4EtNifk22XXVnKrjspC sXc6oQanxv5JcDClbqMhQsyacBowrjrVU+154Je3Q0A/L1OlldfjjpIkkaotdjPW+B35 kd+aaHy4B4GbB7298vNHCZg4erM/r3pustsqljPurkpHOH4wuOaZ9//N+bYzqLnrW+pE Y2irSCuM5JddStp4vozsElB8Rjl0XxLaPlVL3FiibJOkK6RVXvF1/reGWBrFfb37zNC4 14wyU6NNNyTMJKUIb7YOXPlUV59q/7MS4QkTUGanQiTQlb22ksSDwcq/6vtuhujJoH7Y 7MDw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533BAOyUB/5jiEYceDPjema8oLApaoW33DO8yZ951WwG3OwXSTLr i2hi2mUNHe9o1RHCKdrOhAFbV3MijjOnQy2A+XayuNHlxshNiFaCBheff//WZG4N9tk+ron8cDW APnQSRocgc0IqSxznTdw= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b0ee:: with SMTP id h14mr3008905ljl.297.1631261542159; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 01:12:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyZ5t9zKzzKsb5XpoHdnx+jfqGGL26SIXTZWuZO4ksHM6rn5E5IYv3fgLnvOno468MX78ieSSZW2FHr1Y4vDgY= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b0ee:: with SMTP id h14mr3008891ljl.297.1631261541980; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 01:12:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210224212018.17576-1-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> <20210909231312.2572006-1-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> <20210909231312.2572006-2-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:12:10 +0200 Message-ID: To: Bruce Richardson Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli , dev , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Feifei Wang , "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" , nd , Feifei Wang Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] eal: reset lcore function pointer and argument 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 Sender: "dev" On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 9:49 AM Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 06:13:07PM -0500, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > > In the rte_eal_remote_launch function, the lcore function pointer is > > checked for NULL. However, the pointer is never reset to NULL. Reset the > > lcore function pointer and argument after the worker has completed > > executing the lcore function. > > > No problems with this patch, but just in general observation. It would be > good if we had test cases to cover these sorts of problems. If a test were > added to the autotests for this issue we could observe the issue reproduced > and easily verify it were fixed by this patch, giving us a high degree of > confidence in the fix. +1 -- David Marchand