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 49B3E45D16 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 20:53:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E622402C4; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 20:53:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-pg1-f173.google.com (mail-pg1-f173.google.com [209.85.215.173]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DC4402C4 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 20:53:37 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pg1-f173.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-7ed9c16f687so781475a12.0 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:53:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1731700417; x=1732305217; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=IuroX6IxmWNk9rfFQeSeY9kEj8+M3vWWTnFO9/whVPk=; b=eMwY/jVCRwO/3Tz9ANSqhc9EwkGeCVpavftppm/t9ZKnzW3tSqTAxqsySdmStNngMY dGceyo8Zzuj1wy5Arsqce3ZGUGjCMMfIYSIzKU2t4VMmmA1Wcc3oc4QxJhUE9yUVfcL8 PcsvTumMbvKCuqOhoewTA/ajrAEjh+Tyhb3aVZRc9kBJmBAD4gMJIC2rcyotGKr38sMb 7N8mu8AXscQPbIPlSxKl1ixvtduG32ZEdhC6sPE38BhshrDjlYTnf5LFgPCC8jDXjB3T eLP7XM4D7nsXPclzjSo3EY3Rz8TVzM+aHNbnNE1ruK1zh/5v4ln2kD3m7be3PAvc8zrx HFoA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1731700417; x=1732305217; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IuroX6IxmWNk9rfFQeSeY9kEj8+M3vWWTnFO9/whVPk=; b=tKASt7cqcljACrHhJgkU/ycbwTm3mVBszgfz5a3P1VVc4U7lkL1T4sj166oMPx8De1 nAUYv8V0nxy8372riy4Id0xhnFawOj1wCniIYa/WsEMqWVB6mKhQsZWcPEPlYYMpvLIj vpXCKXfo+wh+l8pEsSZeiu75zHAuuEXXye5n9RQ+vO6toZkHiKN0kFhcPeOQod8QoT4I zMwRp1C3qhmxlznXAJzEwj3HSYjqN4aFXfiVrB01IdaTZNeWvPVCYUxcMcNBCzXdAyx9 5N7so7k0PqCT0O/we2fHq+bbwifxjTyAvG4RGq/oVLquMLRpvsxzjwlmKTTtLDgh63wH 0HEg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWddd3MOMclv1d8fi9GVE6EAXmD0Na9UKF9khrs4RMVXNOf6BVWPCztscz04B3khz8fRKL9aKI=@dpdk.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YylDR+FqjthOvFy6AXZACqAF5T7n2HzYmvNQouHpW4Vre9OG30Q OsN8MoXvOosFHWg037plkYEVctbKIH8W5SwkggP35EVpklBdWrHJMhYkPOiMkVE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE/UGd+PDIWQhCuNltLAxuQshOp8H+myK9TvlIE3WoDbxyuH5pO2GOEX8QAyqTqkzO46EWK5w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:6a20:b0:1db:e45a:6633 with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-1dc90bc9911mr5334686637.29.1731700416836; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:53:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-96-226.wavecable.com. [204.195.96.226]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-724771e673bsm1759796b3a.169.2024.11.15.11.53.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:53:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:53:34 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Bruce Richardson Cc: , , , Tyler Retzlaff , Michael Santana , David Marchand , Aaron Conole Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/10] test/eal: fix core check in c flag test Message-ID: <20241115115334.1f9c40e3@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: References: <20241114001403.147609-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20241114192603.41145-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20241114192603.41145-8-stephen@networkplumber.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:07:42 +0000 Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 11:25:05AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > The expression for checking which lcore is enabled for 0-7 > > was wrong (missing case for 6). > > > > Link: https://pvs-studio.com/en/blog/posts/cpp/1179/ > > > > Fixes: b0209034f2bb ("test/eal: check number of cores before running subtests") > > Cc: msantana@redhat.com > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger > > Just wondering would it not be better/safer to put in an actual loop check > here? > However, I'm also ok with keeping the fix as-is, so: > > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson My goal was to do minimum changes for now, to avoid introducing new bugs.