From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D651B969 for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 10:37:55 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 May 2018 01:37:54 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,403,1520924400"; d="scan'208";a="40008637" Received: from aburakov-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.252.6.248]) ([10.252.6.248]) by fmsmga008.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 May 2018 01:37:53 -0700 To: Remy Horton , dev@dpdk.org Cc: sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com References: <777ae6b10a7524e188c07ba14e576fc7b0e21018.1524729978.git.anatoly.burakov@intel.com> <952c259e-eb94-0a8d-7966-00e3591f9c37@intel.com> <456f4736-856e-3b06-4c8c-a74adfd0b723@intel.com> <147e5200-1a7a-017a-2428-7813ead41ff5@intel.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: <33e5ba67-59cc-46e1-fe26-0fed53abaf83@intel.com> Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 09:37:53 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <147e5200-1a7a-017a-2428-7813ead41ff5@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/3] memzone: improve zero-length memzone reserve 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, 15 May 2018 08:37:56 -0000 On 15-May-18 7:24 AM, Remy Horton wrote: > > On 14/05/2018 12:29, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > [..] >> This failure is not caused by this patchset, and you should get similar >> failures on master if you get these while testing my patchset. I am not >> able to reproduce this issue, but i'll double-check the bounded reserve >> code with a fine-toothed comb anyway. > > I reliably get the failure with V3 applied to RC2, but so far haven't > been able to replicate with any other combination (clean RC2, RC2+V5, > master+V4, etc). Odd.. > I've retested on plain v3+rc2 (i was previously testing on master), and i can reproduce the failure as well. The bug that was causing this issue was fixed on rebase in v4. So, rc2+v4/v5 no longer has this issue. -- Thanks, Anatoly