From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] app/proc-info: fix port mask parse issue
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 04:10:28 +0100
Message-ID: <3847235.2WWUCME0sW@xps>
References: <1541571009-12396-1-git-send-email-han.li1@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, reshma.pattan@intel.com
To: Li Han <han.li1@zte.com.cn>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 539A411A4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 04:10:32 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <1541571009-12396-1-git-send-email-han.li1@zte.com.cn>
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>

Hi,

07/11/2018 07:10, Li Han:
> parse_portmask return type is int,but global variable
> "enabled_port_mask" type is uint32_t.so in proc_info_parse_args
> function,when parse_portmask return -1,"enabled_port_mask" will
> get a huge value and "if (enabled_port_mask == 0)" will never happen.
> 
> Fixes: 22561383ea17 ("app: replace dump_cfg by proc_info")
> Signed-off-by: Li Han <han.li1@zte.com.cn>
[...]
> -static uint32_t enabled_port_mask;
> +static uint64_t enabled_port_mask;
[...]
> -static int
> +static unsigned long
>  parse_portmask(const char *portmask)

On one side, you use uint64_t, on the other side, you use unsigned long.
I don't understand the logic behind.