From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio: do not use memcmp() to compare PCI
 address
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 17:24:03 +0100
Message-ID: <db9772cb-70d4-2b2c-2b2c-ebc46624746d@intel.com>
References: <1490975813-6700-1-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com>
 <a544a4f4-aed5-0517-9f84-4bbbe81e14f3@intel.com>
 <f5827858-a5fc-7ec2-a8be-b989afedca21@solarflare.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>, stable@dpdk.org,
 dev@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
In-Reply-To: <f5827858-a5fc-7ec2-a8be-b989afedca21@solarflare.com>
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 31/03/2017 17:18, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> On 03/31/2017 07:09 PM, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote:
>> On 31/03/2017 16:56, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>> PCI address structure has padding which may have garbage.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 2f4adfad0a69 ("vfio: add multiprocess support")
>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
>>> ---
>>> It is a real bug which I've hit during multi-process debugging.
>>>
>>>   lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_vfio.c | 3 ++-
>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_vfio.c 
>>> b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_vfio.c
>>> index 5f478c5..7d8b9fb 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_vfio.c
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_vfio.c
>>> @@ -355,7 +355,8 @@ pci_vfio_map_resource(struct rte_pci_device *dev)
>>>       } else {
>>>           /* if we're in a secondary process, just find our tailq 
>>> entry */
>>>           TAILQ_FOREACH(vfio_res, vfio_res_list, next) {
>>> -            if (memcmp(&vfio_res->pci_addr, &dev->addr, 
>>> sizeof(dev->addr)))
>>> +            if (rte_eal_compare_pci_addr(&vfio_res->pci_addr,
>>> +                             &dev->addr))
>>>                   continue;
>>>               break;
>>>           }
>>
>> Different commit, same patch :)
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dpdk.org_dev_patchwork_patch_21828_&d=DQICaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=flTOx6Av679My7o_iScb5sOlLD68bpUyE2RUtfW3SWQ&m=uvsF8SJaLsRNp3l01Ji5iD4EB1hkHVPOX_dFKqTu_mU&s=HYxvqVvNsbEzQgMJmwQuH6G7vqOkyg7vJ1PrzsxKr5c&e= 
>
>
> True, sorry, lost your patch from my view.
> I'm not sure which state should be set on my patch in the patchwork. 
> Thomas, please, resolve it properly.
>

No worries. Probably the title on the other patch was a bit misleading.

You could just set it to the "Not Applicable" state.

Sergio

> Thanks,
> Andrew.