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 697BBA0524; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 10:35:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08A12240613; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 10:35:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D872405F7 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 10:35:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66111E68; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 04:35:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 04 Feb 2021 04:35:19 -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= MkSRexBCo3NG88vXwSXjll9gJ8L3xCOWU/TkenvpKTE=; b=HAOkiyL7YVM/wKs/ aI0VJ15H02kCuJjHDaXHmkEgWbWOih8tjtnIGb7PEfIOwCbGZZF//BaoT6Vxl3a2 BeyVEbTQp35N8YCVSqtSfOFIHnj4zIsyQ910Uk3/7HgDmPjd+dZXUJY/EKClpF/B Ib4FGA6EvHgpIQXMhNft488iPRzBxk40xaTZlHgPFydGqYT92jAJ8DolHXeCqD3K ewPUWGfbhuOHaYTDy6s1D4/vuuka7c8FqOd5smb4rHSJ/o4K5VyVGWXAB2YrZCw+ 5sb6DoaeA5OBBOMMjsmAQVBMD0ioaXpwkNfu8RQwDJ3dUuSwTPkjEvbZNkGtuU0X mFklcA== 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=fm2; bh=MkSRexBCo3NG88vXwSXjll9gJ8L3xCOWU/TkenvpK TE=; b=Ff42qIqI9XlvuudhN1oYKWJnL7WEA7J6nlUtGhQjx2RZeuhIqNdh/rWE2 sewbND417k/cYnkY4vf6ls/Mz7yk0dSAzt19MAOqK57pNSdXvWi5XET47xNpJEuj NYjM7lS/ZJpo1ZHsBepuYOI17GBE55mipjf8+UVxnx7vpAUEWVE9jQm3IdBexl4s 51X1w3+Gp3iG4bgbDpXtzZWtcbk8FHn1bwEDB7HvZHKsmh3Y//3fNC8vynwclg+U 8Y5T5Uw6ZP+H3KVcro88AqEc0VFhkArrckAH3HRL5ykATyHg/yMrqF6RWAlulsDg kPRc9HXJKfgoJZYsIwPwmWtzDKUjQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrgeeggddtudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthhqredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedvkeetveeihfegfedtfeejueekkeekueevgfejuedviedvvdevuefg teevtdefveenucffohhmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvd dtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhr ohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght 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 E53D91080066; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 04:35:17 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgg==?= Krawczyk , "Wiles, Keith" Cc: David Marchand , dev , Igor Chauskin Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 10:35:17 +0100 Message-ID: <11356297.j43AlxRKI5@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210204085209.2716232-1-mk@semihalf.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Fix loss of data stored in udata64 mbuf field X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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" 04/02/2021 10:17, Micha=C5=82 Krawczyk: > czw., 4 lut 2021 o 10:01 David Marchand napis= a=C5=82(a): > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 9:52 AM Michal Krawczyk wrote: > > > > > > DPDK v20.11 removed udata64 field, and changed type of the dynfield1 = to > > > uint32_t. > > > > > > Due to define: > > > lib/common/pg_compat.h:#define udata64 dynfield1[0] > > > the copy of udata64 was in fact copying only the first 32 bits. > > > > I did not look at the pktgen code, but directly accessing mbuf field > > dynfieldX is likely a bug. > > > > pktgen should register a dynfield for its own usage to avoid conflicts > > with other parts of the dpdk. > > Example of such a conversion to the new mechanism: > > https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=3Deb8258402b3f > > >=20 > Hi David, >=20 > thanks for pointing this out. I wasn't aware of that, I'll rework my > fix to satisfy the dynfield requirements. Sorry for having to say that, but you are supposed to read the release notes when upgrading.