On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 7:39 PM Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 5 May 2022 19:29:54 +0200 > Stanislaw Kardach wrote: > > > The lpm_process_event_pkt() can either process a packet using an > > architecture specific (defined for X86/SSE, ARM/Neon and PPC64/Altivec) > > path or a scalar one. The choice is however done using an ifdef > > pre-processor macro. Because of that the scalar version was apparently > > not widely excersized/compiled. > > Due to some copy/paste errors, the scalar logic in > > lpm_process_event_pkt() retained a "continue" statement where a BAD_PORT > > should be returned after refactoring of the LPM logic in the l3fwd > > example. > > > > Fixes: 99fc91d18082 ("examples/l3fwd: add event lpm main loop") > > Cc: pbhagavatula@marvell.com > > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Kardach > > Sponsored-by: Frank Zhao > > Sponsored-by: Sam Grove > > Would be easier to get merged if bug fixes came as separate patch > submission. > Sure, I can post this separately. The reason for posting this along with RISC-V patches is that those depend on this one. So I could add "depends-on" but wanted be on the safe side. > > Also have not seen Sponsored-by before; what do you expect it to mean? > Never used in DPDK or kernel git tree. > The idea is that this work was sponsored by the companies mentioned in the sign-off. It is used i.e. in FreeBSD though admittedly never in Linux or DPDK. Alternative, which makes checkpatch happy and was previously used is "Suggested-by". However suggestion, doesn't necessary mean sponsorship. I had a talk about this with Thomas Monjalon and he has also leaned towards "Sponsored-by". I'm open to suggestions as I admit, I'm not sure which route is better.