Stephen, we are waiting for a v4 please.
26/10/2020 15:49, Stephen Hemminger: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:39:35 +0100 > Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> wrote: > > > Hi Stephen, > > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 05:43:31PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > The dynamic flag management is broken if rte_mbuf_dynflag_lookup() > > > is done in a secondary process because the local pointer to > > > the memzone is not ever initialized. > > > > > > Fix it by using the same checks as dynfield_register(). > > > I.e if shared memory zone has not been looked up already, > > > then discover it. > > > > > > Fixes: 4958ca3a443a ("mbuf: support dynamic fields and flags") > > > Cc: olivier.m...@6wind.com > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> > > > --- > > > > > > v3 - change title, fix one extra whitespace > > > > > > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c | 20 ++++++++------------ > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c > > > b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c > > > index 538a43f6959f..554ec5a1ca4f 100644 > > > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c > > > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_dyn.c > > > @@ -185,13 +185,11 @@ rte_mbuf_dynfield_lookup(const char *name, struct > > > rte_mbuf_dynfield *params) > > > { > > > struct mbuf_dynfield_elt *mbuf_dynfield; > > > > > > - if (shm == NULL) { > > > - rte_errno = ENOENT; > > > - return -1; > > > - } > > > - > > > rte_mcfg_tailq_read_lock(); > > > - mbuf_dynfield = __mbuf_dynfield_lookup(name); > > > + if (shm == NULL && init_shared_mem() < 0) > > > + mbuf_dynfield = NULL; > > > + else > > > + mbuf_dynfield = __mbuf_dynfield_lookup(name); > > > rte_mcfg_tailq_read_unlock(); > > > > > > if (mbuf_dynfield == NULL) { > > > rte_errno = ENOENT; > > > return -1; > > > > There is still a small corner case here: on a primary process, > > init_shared_mem() can return -1 in case rte_memzone_reserve_aligned() > > returns a NULL memzone. In this situation, rte_errno is set by the > > memzone layer by overriden to ENOENT. > > > > Maybe something like this is better, what do you think? > > Sure, for what I was using rte_errno was not important. And since it was > previously broken lets get it fixed. >