On 11/18/2022 12:21 PM, Suanming Mou wrote: > Hi, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2022 6:40 PM >> To: Suanming Mou <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >> Aman Singh <[email protected]>; Yuying Zhang >> <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix action destruction memory leak >> >> On 11/17/2022 8:55 AM, Suanming Mou wrote: >>> In case action handle destroy fails, the job memory was not freed >>> properly. This commit fixes the possible memory leak in the action >>> handle destruction failed case. >>> >>> Fixes: c9dc03840873 ("ethdev: add indirect action async query") >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Suanming Mou <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> app/test-pmd/config.c | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c index >>> 982549ffed..719bdd4261 100644 >>> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c >>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c >>> @@ -2873,9 +2873,9 @@ port_queue_action_handle_destroy(portid_t >> port_id, >>> job->type = QUEUE_JOB_TYPE_ACTION_DESTROY; >>> job->pia = pia; >>> >>> - if (pia->handle && >>> - rte_flow_async_action_handle_destroy(port_id, >>> + if (rte_flow_async_action_handle_destroy(port_id, >> >> Why 'pia->handle' check removed, was it unnecessary to check it at first >> place?
This seems already discussed and agreed in other thread, so proceeding. Applied to dpdk-next-net/main, thanks.
