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 BB8D8A034C for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:29:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B37164068B; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:29:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-relay-internal-1.canonical.com (smtp-relay-internal-1.canonical.com [185.125.188.123]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C124068B for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:29:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-qv1-f70.google.com (mail-qv1-f70.google.com [209.85.219.70]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-relay-internal-1.canonical.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07CF93F191 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 06:28:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=canonical.com; s=20210705; t=1648448939; bh=s5l1QFhQvYQ8rXTLnWA65bIed7Ziexy5hICodEv+3EE=; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=ad8sB/MGsGHrZ2i3L4Nouu6fCfZcMsiexG14kr4gDspAjI+g+l8E7L6ehilksXeNR f1mRP+qS62amoqU0sTU3rqUe23dyi4adfFtpv/uM4LKhy8IcXritaPRr8oAmS7V2KN CKexQPfeIJN5S4sbRNwzVeUjk3hl+Z9LBYyqoPar0T3e9BWEAkIbsTCwzjiGTCnHM+ 7WUq856rebvELmJrK2BL85t9emsEreqdJDMVGDIs7Heb66gBsX8/4FPThN4W2QDLiN mN2/tssGoJS+t1IQe6OQz6kbsQQFMI8nWR1J1bSztzhMinqCCDhcexduVoKtNcGIH5 KnxDlbQlvfjgA== Received: by mail-qv1-f70.google.com with SMTP id x16-20020a0ce250000000b00432ec6eaf85so10680837qvl.15 for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:28:58 -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=s5l1QFhQvYQ8rXTLnWA65bIed7Ziexy5hICodEv+3EE=; b=uEkrVO10tsTL7vgXE++Myz1xaD1cboxYqQSZGMF/NXu3TQt8nroeVnI1LSurPdP7N2 Nj6OA9TTHZcgqLLN/EZjm1Zeue/syXaPGFoIkv7rvi1s5k14D3qdnWYPxvRgllbyAXaz hg1/2lucgCcsNmDMo6SuXZkgY2FFkkd/LrqoIVfmqPe8/rlPYIdeHjMkmTTGKasfA8Nf fO9ZhAEtO+R4J0SzJE6dW3PZD97T2HjPR3G8+kWGHlendQpnU0n6rfz5zNySWZBYvy6S 1nWb5g578M8LYfQvSFAi1u41+5YKcDtJ3NIjjMSHaJ/m/RApy6JVVAARTZvSxrjgzt3Y MZ4A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530B5EJghHhVx1UZQO8YMu8A+DUmRmfRbmwxDMYnwhavTZGpKVnr Rg+jQgmR+SXkm+7YQLhV9eTszB9Nvy+4cYA3J/BNrcej5+hD5kBCz6d+vM3pK2BH88S5yuzEuYw WBoKWjzgNinKIE25DkE35PIXQIuPWx0qkq1UdoTDg X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:e63:b0:441:7161:de41 with SMTP id jz3-20020a0562140e6300b004417161de41mr17216449qvb.97.1648448937952; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:28:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwxTR00rHej1wpPSwZQ/yn67jVIp9D4iFyLDjEJTvG5ppEaHvMUiFLSq9ikHRBX+7nA7Sdc11MH41/ZcX4tgkE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:e63:b0:441:7161:de41 with SMTP id jz3-20020a0562140e6300b004417161de41mr17216443qvb.97.1648448937734; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:28:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220325081606.3228-1-kalesh-anakkur.purayil@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <20220325081606.3228-1-kalesh-anakkur.purayil@broadcom.com> From: Christian Ehrhardt Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:28:31 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 19.11] net/bnxt: fix a typo introduced in backport To: Kalesh A P Cc: stable@dpdk.org, ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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, Mar 25, 2022 at 9:15 AM Kalesh A P wrote: > > From: Kalesh AP > > This patch fixes a typo introduced in the last backport. > Fixed a wrong check. Hi Kalesh, thanks for the fix. Since we already have entered -rc1 and testing I wanted to ask how sever this issue is. The options we have are a) not really an important issue, hold it back not and make it part of 19.11.13 later this year b) breaking bnxt too much, needs to get into 19.11.12 - but we would not reset testing (no new RC), you'd cover some bnxt related tests c) breaking bnxt too much and having potential to influence all things, taking into 19.11.12 and casting an -rc2 resetting tests for everyone I'm tempted to consider this a case for (b), but wanted to know if you agree and if you could make the related bnxt based re-test happen? > Upstream code does not have this issue. > > Bugzilla ID: 977 > Fixes: 942eb8e842fc ("net/bnxt: fix xstats names query overrun") > > Signed-off-by: Kalesh AP > --- > drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c b/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c > index 39fd100..bc181db 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c > +++ b/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_stats.c > @@ -612,7 +612,7 @@ int bnxt_dev_xstats_get_names_op(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev, > if (rc) > return rc; > > - if (xstats_names != NULL || size < stat_cnt) > + if (xstats_names == NULL || size < stat_cnt) > return stat_cnt; > > for (i = 0; i < RTE_DIM(bnxt_rx_stats_strings); i++) { > -- > 2.10.1 > -- Christian Ehrhardt Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd