From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 358FAA2EFC for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:06:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9131E1BFA2; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:06:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E4FF1BEEE for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:06:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-vk1-f198.google.com (mail-vk1-f198.google.com [209.85.221.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E9D33295 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 09:06:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk1-f198.google.com with SMTP id n192so8023769vkc.9 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 02:06:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DGJ2v/wu7fejX4CGPNlFaoDy5Ds8D1Xzucnpu5fIIzM=; b=j49ky65sSPkLhrvvuHmqNIbDrVVmAn62F9HgFxoTkMGsjFZQfYduhEU1Y6sEx2QuLH YAk9eVkfG0HwCaPIZ4hcgHdHwBpt2462rRY8d9ZhLR0PqCoIubk/+EfEBQfGJ8eMAxmx LGl7mLSka2gkltbcZKC9DRTu2hqyBtGuvVJDRmegwOMgg4uUyPYisO3oHewPby5VTenZ dyzyrisedHBV2zJ7Xbf1quZS+ci2nTc8K1sIfAmcB74TtAqGbESqDghLfmyYMtbVItGX US2B3OIvMbx+WZARdVgxeEap8dYFGsJWL6h4bLL34ITpmDAA2E1mO190kuESY4qYfJ38 mazQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVx4DisPpG4nblTBFd2FcE9VF3JHTPJhGaGrrUL5EX4W7yIawes p3q3dqQTN9C94AIEu6VNvdTHLQyNcYRxq5w6o4dMPDNpvxEc1zcQ8RPdVV5KFz//i2QOcp/MyhC 4jkakG4VX75asL3GEK9A= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:115c:: with SMTP id j28mr6989539vsg.105.1571130385308; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 02:06:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzmgb0i3ekxpIhZDyGxnDTmmx0cKwE2QZ19m1n31pgSUxk/YJ1ZyJcLnm3I3mA42mEKoPmzVGJUdS9s50BPKNw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:115c:: with SMTP id j28mr6989518vsg.105.1571130385036; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 02:06:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190903191645.1700-1-pbhagavatula@marvell.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:06:13 +0200 Message-ID: To: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Stephen Hemminger , dev , dpdk stable , Aaron Conole Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] eal/reciprocal: fix off by one when divisor is 32bit 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:56 AM Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula wrote: > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: David Marchand > >Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 2:16 PM > >To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran ; Stephen > >Hemminger > >Cc: dev ; Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula > >; dpdk stable ; Aaron > >Conole > >Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/reciprocal: fix off by one > >when divisor is 32bit > >On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 9:17 PM wrote: > >> > >> From: Pavan Nikhilesh > >> > >> Fix off by one error in 64bit reciprocal division when divisor is 32bit. > >> > >> Fixes: 6d45659eacb8 ("eal: add u64-bit variant for reciprocal divide") > >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh > > > >Any review? > > > >Are we missing an update in the unit test to catch this issue? > >Thanks. > > We actually caught it in a unit test > >test_reciprocal_division We had this problem since the very start then. Both reciprocal_division and reciprocal_division_perf are in the "perf" list. Can they be promoted to the standard list? -- David Marchand