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 D1794A0548; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:54:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C626341144; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:54:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B1940E03 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:54:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3023201FB6; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 06:54:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 11 Nov 2021 06:54:53 -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=fm2; bh= OWOFRzHQIsbcWyulwZ+U7bCwUUdobi+SChzztjPRbUY=; b=kJnyKEGjsoV8cPvg rrIaaIr2lzAjVkDW9FGhwE8PC8+OQadcYul7LfSEOEy4xw/gCjLPk7ObGe1+I7Wy v31XwE1yGC5FNzDqPKTHhIQ4gqdOOqWH/QyiJBkpL78dSbo9qe7XybFjjOCyn7XN IZACqsO+UiC37YfwU5YoqL5I9eocix+CE64IV7l12tVtpa/q6vY+BImq2RMiCdaF YWhuaERjKoObZwr2CUqLSMxlKHsUeLczThbMSxs8K+NXLI6use2z+jqOi4wHihC7 X4Y2qF6dUxhPm/LA/uPwKyg5g394fw8GX/1jFNvi9K8xe3RrrpqmAmqa137An7T/ 12W9Ww== 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=OWOFRzHQIsbcWyulwZ+U7bCwUUdobi+SChzztjPRb UY=; b=TKBSzavhsjKMoc157s41swl2yrnoXuTXageGR/6XO6FR8HRK5imeS69LZ RPm3Lruc9ypQnLEFN/JL9BRyZsU6fDzYWJgKCDyYfIA1E2QTquycg69unVdfutbg ygUndVUS3iEh/psw8RCoeiFqoeynXLo5ySeaeg2+lE2nsN5PztlwChjwcGl0I2Jl N9xUS0B0P9bXGS3dvc3EqFzePAN2c/4kiJvKo6HbZiYUWdC3Am0hiNy84yWoSXvO oaktRLYJC05+yd6+3r89uJ7KckJ8IaEqXHccY9r7ihuIZBZ8kJlIwdXoWXM3+PPd AFE2RrXjl0shNhLzH8mfr12wxoFBg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrvddugdefgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthhqredttddtudenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpeefffegiedtfeetffeuueffleeuuddvleetkeelgfevudekvdeuueeg ieekhfelgfenucffohhmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivg eptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdr nhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 06:54:49 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Morten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= , Tyler Retzlaff Cc: stephen@networkplumber.org, dev@dpdk.org, anatoly.burakov@intel.com, ranjit.menon@intel.com, mdr@ashroe.eu, david.marchand@redhat.com, dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] doc: propose correction rte_{bsf, fls} inline functions type use Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:54:47 +0100 Message-ID: <28219790.PSkamzV0e4@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20211111041540.GA31795@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> References: <1615418650-19513-1-git-send-email-roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D86C5E@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <20211111041540.GA31795@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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 11/11/2021 05:15, Tyler Retzlaff: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 09:45:20AM +0200, Morten Br=F8rup wrote: > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > > > Sent: Monday, 25 October 2021 21.14 > > >=20 > > > 15/03/2021 20:34, Tyler Retzlaff: > > > > The proposal has resulted from request to review [1] the following > > > > functions where there appeared to be inconsistency in return type > > > > or parameter type selections for the following inline functions. > > > > > > > > rte_bsf32() > > > > rte_bsf32_safe() > > > > rte_bsf64() > > > > rte_bsf64_safe() > > > > rte_fls_u32() > > > > rte_fls_u64() > > > > rte_log2_u32() > > > > rte_log2_u64() > > > > > > > > [1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-March/201590.html > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff > > > > --- > > > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > > > > +* eal: Fix inline function return and parameter types for > > > rte_{bsf,fls} > > > > + inline functions to be consistent. > > > > + Change ``rte_bsf32_safe`` parameter ``v`` from ``uint64_t`` to > > > ``uint32_t``. > > > > + Change ``rte_bsf64`` return type to ``uint32_t`` instead of > > > ``int``. > > > > + Change ``rte_fls_u32`` return type to ``uint32_t`` instead of > > > ``int``. > > > > + Change ``rte_fls_u64`` return type to ``uint32_t`` instead of > > > ``int``. > > >=20 > > > It seems we completely forgot this. > > > How critical is it? > >=20 >=20 > our organization as a matter of internal security policy requires these > sorts of things to be fixed. while i didn't see any bugs in the dpdk > code there is an opportunity for users of these functions to > accidentally write code that is prone to integer and buffer overflow > class bugs. >=20 > there is no urgency, but why leave things sloppy? though i do wish this > had been responded to in a more timely manner 7 months for something > that should have almost been rubber stamped. It's difficult to be on all topics. The best way to avoid such miss is to ping when you see no progress. So what's next? They are only inline functions, right? so no ABI breakage. Is it going to require any change on application-side? I guess no. Is it acceptable in 21.11-rc3? maybe too late? Is it acceptable in 22.02?