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 A72B8A2EFC for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:06:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5038A1BF8D; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:06:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12AC1BEF8 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:06:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-vk1-f200.google.com (mail-vk1-f200.google.com [209.85.221.200]) (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 1664081DE0 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 09:06:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk1-f200.google.com with SMTP id u123so7989402vkf.8 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 02:06:26 -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=DGJ2v/wu7fejX4CGPNlFaoDy5Ds8D1Xzucnpu5fIIzM=; b=R73qdZtIL//K5gOzzCcFbpOsc4Psvef/i61PE0IHa6sZ00KpJcrkBMf+fJu8TEJ2R4 9eUx5KMJmWADsDJjGtB/hgkQsGDbWO5H9BkLlkS1laPLNbXYO8DQWfVIg+ncgEpP8b3S lZLn7D529PBpatKua8ydvRcoxUKhykJSjzxqmOzGFmSjj28mO3onKuxiB5+AAsyOvPoT Erm6tYebJbwz8kTVLnQFgdnjE2SCqsqohao4uEsC5p4ReRKp5KQb4AyiphdAxlsnw12o 8ExlGIf+K3VLuGaVeJlqPCOCisGhTRCnY4PdtnZTOe7pMd3QsAbOI0ez2uQAmD0uhn+8 7FrQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWL2n+Va+iaLvYNxRUZRcvvM10lORnGRfbtGs2S99IQXFmwcSgh Nk63XOaxZzjvi7zmsyvFn38FmO3HyrvSVWD2X5D+5AdefWKQff8P6h6djnKXtORVUBIXnp3ILLN a2ycqhttU14MNgR3INkJPklU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:115c:: with SMTP id j28mr6989536vsg.105.1571130385300; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 02:06:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzmgb0i3ekxpIhZDyGxnDTmmx0cKwE2QZ19m1n31pgSUxk/YJ1ZyJcLnm3I3mA42mEKoPmzVGJUdS9s50BPKNw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:115c:: with SMTP id j28mr6989518vsg.105.1571130385036; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 02:06:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190903191645.1700-1-pbhagavatula@marvell.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:06:13 +0200 Message-ID: To: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Stephen Hemminger , dev , dpdk stable , Aaron Conole Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/reciprocal: fix off by one when divisor is 32bit X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:56 AM Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula wrote: > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: David Marchand > >Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 2:16 PM > >To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran ; Stephen > >Hemminger > >Cc: dev ; Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula > >; dpdk stable ; Aaron > >Conole > >Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/reciprocal: fix off by one > >when divisor is 32bit > >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. > >> > >> Fixes: 6d45659eacb8 ("eal: add u64-bit variant for reciprocal divide") > >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh > > > >Any review? > > > >Are we missing an update in the unit test to catch this issue? > >Thanks. > > We actually caught it in a unit test > >test_reciprocal_division We had this problem since the very start then. Both reciprocal_division and reciprocal_division_perf are in the "perf" list. Can they be promoted to the standard list? -- David Marchand