From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvargs: fix processing a null list
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 11:34:36 +0200
Message-ID: <20181024093436.c6ak47y6ckofyofm@platinum>
References: <20181023162454.15519-1-thomas@monjalon.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181023162454.15519-1-thomas@monjalon.net>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:24:54PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> In the doxygen description of rte_kvargs_process(), it is said:
> 	If *kvlist* is NULL function does nothing.
> It has been added by mistake here instead of rte_kvargs_free().
> Anyway, null list should be correctly handled in both functions.
> 
> Comments are fixed in both functions and NULL handling is added
> to rte_kvargs_process().
> 
> Fixes: c34af7424e09 ("kvargs: fix freeing behaviour for null")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>

Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>

> @@ -119,11 +119,10 @@ void rte_kvargs_free(struct rte_kvargs *kvlist);
>   *
>   * For each key/value association that matches the given key, calls the
>   * handler function with the for a given arg_name passing the value on the
> - * dictionary for that key and a given extra argument. If *kvlist* is NULL
> - * function does nothing.
> + * dictionary for that key and a given extra argument.

It looks the rest of the api documentation is perfectible :)
I'll send a fix in another patch.

Thanks,
Olivier