From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72836A32A8 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 16:33:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A596D1BF85; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 16:33:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E05451BF7E for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 16:33:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-vs1-f69.google.com (mail-vs1-f69.google.com [209.85.217.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6C133688E for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 14:33:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vs1-f69.google.com with SMTP id i23so745995vsp.2 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 07:33:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=b7HuHRNV1EkvQ7I6mC5Z8PPOyHvkfcIGBBPd8sa8bBI=; b=BCuxt+0IXgP9M54iRj3k+j0pmFWDX8Bzf6q5PUfxZRpboA3FoNsfJP80DhP3NU01dU SEiH92mBSKTZgJ5bI8pd4dZUD+S4WUCusja7SWLOPuF/nWJ5Vs3iLywRVg3JSvVArR8z rCkp9RqZJIeew1Q2FqRcCLk4h/sEm0d4ElWOp+r/tb+HWFruj/K5WKcWvPI3EQf3ORln w/+KyZkx27C2ozRU+b5EDjbHnbaVAYUJNtCLLXvTOJOIvx126w74B+u0H4vDnPk0xby4 5QmgPMBDKKDn1fP8saZ0PTPExQVKCSprf5UHXdXpykVM2RPzpWvBBbJfAWf3RdBdZsA8 Oobg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWvWchToJMDWa3QurehyJfb0VcNewyp5a3a9oeT8tq8HckNTrB8 4ciZM+GgXVDQ1Dda4I0o3rDttTyOBOE4Z91IUrO8/57lDfNy6YbI3B8kdvmeM+D3UEqA4Md3Zj8 I34U4ni87pSS9e3ZiNnY= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:189a:: with SMTP id t26mr4416196uag.87.1572100412060; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 07:33:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwCFNXs0uzdgmMnByk/bD177qon8l+9HrmDzJZBlQ9Ca53sjQQRIPlPrIjCmB7ZPwyDqTfB/fsTao+UgP7EcRo= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:189a:: with SMTP id t26mr4416179uag.87.1572100411635; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 07:33:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190903191645.1700-1-pbhagavatula@marvell.com> In-Reply-To: <20190903191645.1700-1-pbhagavatula@marvell.com> From: David Marchand Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 16:33:20 +0200 Message-ID: To: Pavan Nikhilesh Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , dev , dpdk stable , Aaron Conole , hannes@stressinduktion.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/reciprocal: fix off by one when divisor is 32bit 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 9:17 PM wrote: > > From: Pavan Nikhilesh > > Fix off by one error in 64bit reciprocal division when divisor is 32bit. Added log from unit test: RTE>>reciprocal_division Validating unsigned 32bit division. Validating unsigned 64bit division. Validating unsigned 64bit division with 32bit divisor. Division failed, 16983222950483802557/819 = expected 20736535959076681 result 20736535959076682 Validating division by power of 2. Test Failed > > Fixes: 6d45659eacb8 ("eal: add u64-bit variant for reciprocal divide") > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh Please continue working on enhancing the functional test so that it can be part of the standard unit test list. Thanks. -- David Marchand