From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: fix for incomplete nb_segs types change
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 23:46:45 +0100
Message-ID: <9049896.KWG8HvEvih@xps>
References: <04EF52DF-6CE8-4EF4-96AA-711184F8379F@gmail.com>
 <3421519.PnyVhdA6Oj@xps> <20171114082444.7v2dspzxno2vmbln@platinum>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: Ilya Matveychikov <matvejchikov@gmail.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876411B228
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 23:46:48 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <20171114082444.7v2dspzxno2vmbln@platinum>
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>

14/11/2017 09:24, Olivier MATZ:
> 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.

OK, applied, thanks