From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 846572B83; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 18:00:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E7E2232B; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:00:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:00:21 -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=mesmtp; bh=XiDsa3M/g8YwdrLxIcaPO365B/Jl0G8fLz6l1cJdHD4=; b=LRl4r8+BkSy6 REjq02WoMCsy1NmGjdYLk0grT0CtlV6HZ2+Ye7QXGvdKccnyt6ULVFKfU1IFEKrE myc72+5jYyoEk17aJDDySwZpOqLZvnP/mFIgbiJUoDWE1VZ1GUyRa+UIUAzXcgA8 xNeO2d5L0YrETLgLoPJbC+pF0q1ec5I= 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=XiDsa3M/g8YwdrLxIcaPO365B/Jl0G8fLz6l1cJdH D4=; b=jLxM3qKdHGRoPnyW6KudFee43gw4CyHsRaUoBa3jM0s+dQHO89iVQBh5W e92ly34objYGZfhZ4UmVLLMEcrkHBBg3FcWe63c25vonywzw+ySjMd6i6KVHla5n IUh1f7wqYl0f6vI74EQwWI8cN1Swswhd1C2m/vo75TJXDE8tjPUOOTBpHAvuLT/L xzR/+34j+RVBDlBFpCALxu8xlXrc1lBLjpcyp3Wb/96i2PSFS56Tw7wVtF14BeHv 0dUB6B0/wa9v8lz53dn1gd4H2nfJvwZcZNTeVKx1panRGCbtWY/IfoP9jXsRQMOC +WQgC5wEnEGJM0v+ka2cw2TP55nkA== X-ME-Sender: 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 A3D21E4472; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:00:19 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet Cc: dev@dpdk.org, wisamm@mellanox.com, stable@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 18:00:17 +0100 Message-ID: <3033024.8sQED2Sm3S@xps> In-Reply-To: <20181112092905.g5vxszu5okxz4pzn@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> References: <20181111235856.31429-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <20181112092905.g5vxszu5okxz4pzn@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: fix parsing of address without function number X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:00:21 -0000 12/11/2018 10:29, Ga=EBtan Rivet: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 12:58:56AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > If the last part of the PCI address (function number) is missing, > > the parsing was successful, assuming function 0. > > The call to strtoul is not returning an error in such a case, > > so an explicit check is inserted before. > >=20 > > This bug has always been there in older parsing macros: > > - GET_PCIADDR_FIELD > > - GET_BLACKLIST_FIELD > >=20 >=20 > Returning 0, that's understandable, but errno not being set > is rather lame from strtoul. >=20 > > Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release") > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > >=20 > > Reported-by: Wisam Jaddo > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon > Acked-by: Gaetan Rivet Applied