Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/5] lpm allocation fixes - v3

[Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>]

Hi Oliver,
thanks for the ack - I had these {} fixed in v2, but accidentially dropped
when merging our code.
v3 was flawed anyway as my submission was not a proper reply-to to the
older series.

This shall not be Thomas work to do, I'll resubmit a v4 re-adding the {}
fix and properly replying to the former v2 as it was intended but failed
for v3.
I also add your acked-by and I'm eager looking forward seeing the patches
pushed then.

Kind Regards,
Christian

Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 03/16/2016 03:16 PM, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> > Poking a bit on autotest revealed a few shortcomings in the lpm
> allocation path.
> > Thanks to the feedback to the first revision of the patches here v2.
> > Also Oliver Matz spotted similar issues and made me aware - thanks!
> > Integrating them revealed even more use after free / leak issues.
> >
> > *updates in v3*
> > - lpm create/free path for v20 and v1604 got the same fixes that were
> >   already identified for lpm6 before
> >
> > *updates in v2*
> > - lpm/lpm6 patches split
> > - following dpdk coding guidelines regarding single line if's
> > - adding singed-off and acked-bys gathered so far
> > - combine all three related patches in one series
> >
> > [PATCH 1/5] lpm6: fix use after free of lpm in rte_lpm6_create
> > [PATCH 2/5] lpm6: fix missing free of rules_tbl and lpm
> > [PATCH 3/5] lpm: fix missing free of lpm
> > [PATCH 4/5] lpm: fix use after free of lpm in rte_lpm_create*
> > [PATCH 5/5] lpm: fix missing free of rules_tbl and lpm in
> >
> > diffstat:
> >  rte_lpm.c  |   23 ++++++++++-------------
> >  rte_lpm6.c |   12 ++++++------
> >  2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Series
> Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
>
> Just one small comment: there are additional { } in patches
> 2/5 and 3/5.
>
> Thomas, do you think you can remove it while pushing?
>
>
>