From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: fix for incomplete nb_segs types change
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:24:46 +0100
Message-ID: <20171114082444.7v2dspzxno2vmbln@platinum>
References: <04EF52DF-6CE8-4EF4-96AA-711184F8379F@gmail.com>
 <2FAC1B54-ACCA-439E-BE58-10007DB35E56@gmail.com>
 <20171113103328.bcxyswa3toxemht5@platinum> <3421519.PnyVhdA6Oj@xps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Ilya Matveychikov <matvejchikov@gmail.com>, dev@dpdk.org
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344821B2DE
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:24:53 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3421519.PnyVhdA6Oj@xps>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 06:09:35AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > >> Update types of variables to correspond to nb_segs type change from
> > > >> uint8_t to uint16_t.
> > > >> 
> > > >> Fixes: 97cb466d65c9 ("mbuf: use 2 bytes for port and nb segments")
> > > >> Cc: olivier.matz@6wind.com
> > > >> 
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Ilya V. Matveychikov <matvejchikov@gmail.com>
> > Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> 
> Is there a real benefit to get it in 17.11?

Without this patch:

- cloning a mbuf with more than 255 segments will create an mbuf with an
  invalid number of segments.

- chaining mbufs with rte_pktmbuf_chain() will return an error if the
  resulting mbuf has more than 255 segments.

> Is there a risk?

It is not so critical, since manipulating mbufs with a large number of
segments is a very specific use case.

But the risk seems low, I think we can put it in 17.11.

Olivier