Hi, Xiao
It's better to have a cover letter for a patch series that contains more than
1 patches, where you can have an overall description of the patchset.
On 08/05, Xiao Zhang wrote:
>The address of receive queue start segment was not updated when found by
>iterated checking, update the address to fix coverity issue.
I suggest to describe more details (dereference after null check) about the
issue other than just say general coverity issue.
>
>Coverity issue: 343416
>Fixes: fe65e1e1 ("fm10k: add vector scatter Rx")
>
>Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>
>Signed-off-by: Xiao Zhang <xiao.zh...@intel.com>
>---
> drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_rxtx_vec.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_rxtx_vec.c
>b/drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_rxtx_vec.c
>index 788e248..9f2c4ac 100644
>--- a/drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_rxtx_vec.c
>+++ b/drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_rxtx_vec.c
>@@ -676,6 +676,7 @@ fm10k_recv_scattered_pkts_vec(void *rx_queue,
> /* find the first split flag, and only reassemble then*/
> while (i < nb_bufs && !split_flags[i])
> i++;
>+ rxq->pkt_first_seg = rx_pkts[i];
Minor nit, if i == nb_bufs, above assignment is meaningless, suggest to move
it after i == nb_bufs check although it doesn't affect the functionality.
I think it applies for the rest of patches too.
Thanks,
Xiaolong
> if (i == nb_bufs)
> return nb_bufs;
> }
>--
>2.7.4
>
