From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (xvm-189-124.dc0.ghst.net [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B19FA0A01 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:47:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8844C140E5C; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:47:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB0340FA7; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:47:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C8AE85; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 16:47:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 06 Jan 2021 16:47:20 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm3; bh= tUD4EIh9/uNk0q+tgbLNnbtzlFy4cB5Ip1zYu4wxGMk=; b=1ovnaPV2zEhvyDLd uDCohIsMWXdaFlsYCYSdVqKkAKft4Jqm3GFTtOcTGFQmM9LsS/VTHfC0txprtc+r +PeQq2uQMpt9ceYLn5PZ79seMt4Rjjt9KxULgc7wYBnt6VXIV2YMeGmepTJWSbvG eCpfGqJtQv5aCc2tmLMZYXyYHvjufFJ3QVVZac5fxJ5e96gBxeSv8uvpRMH9Ca3I RX1FkMFoqCeNDgd2NfqUH+CE4pAV3gAZkU4R+7WkZYzFU5v205OqVAnZo1YZIIOA Ds727S0ufGWx31H60kQ7nUS7K1M2bNeO5qc3FXC7wvMjHbXyZvMy2w7lLxB6ALLn 2TBZqw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=tUD4EIh9/uNk0q+tgbLNnbtzlFy4cB5Ip1zYu4wxG Mk=; b=IXHg8WQCwMI5twVMdonqi/cyqrxizrhikdJEIMLvuCysI+cKAAVRidr13 lDaidd2u8GvfddIcN/XmDIt5UO9yb7I4Mlj/+ekca9JbXYNKVY4dqA69Qwa42fRH sMZWR9U2ExuVYtNHQvN3HFpEJlRnXnZanUWb6tg6vRLmr7Ix85bqBl36K3EY/rj6 bjX/4IwK/F7j8Wf2g/2gZG+GecM7RziOFc9c1uV5sRT4BJXn9Mdyq2UnsUfpWkr9 VhL/lBX4wDIVxJfsFAgpSdvLhoaQEyo2cMMHXZCstQcRH+KQO9bbiyW/9pQH0pyJ BdThBX6d+E26nQjn+QuW8mRFnCV9w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrvdegtddgheekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E5442108005F; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 16:47:17 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Michael Baum Cc: dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org, Matan Azrad , Raslan Darawsheh , Viacheslav Ovsiienko Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 22:47:16 +0100 Message-ID: <4387862.qzZCY7BrVk@thomas> In-Reply-To: <1608022112-13036-2-git-send-email-michaelba@nvidia.com> References: <1608022112-13036-1-git-send-email-michaelba@nvidia.com> <1608022112-13036-2-git-send-email-michaelba@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 2/2] net/mlx5: fix Tx queue creation error flow 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 Sender: "stable" 15/12/2020 09:48, Michael Baum: > In Tx queue creation, there are two validations for the Tx > configuration. > > When one of them fails, the MR btree memory was not freed what caused a > memory leak. > > Free it. > > Fixes: f6d9ab4e769f ("net/mlx5: check Tx queue size overflow") > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > Signed-off-by: Michael Baum > Acked-by: Matan Azrad It is not really fixing the queue creation but a leak. In such case, it is more explicit to say in title: "fix leak on [...] failure" Series applied in next-net-mlx with above wording, thanks.