Hi Thomas, As I understand Sergio suggested to come back to the solution similar to v1. Could you comment or better take decision which solution should be applied, please.
Best Regards, S?awomir >-----Original Message----- >From: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio >Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 1:29 PM >To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> >Cc: Mrozowicz, SlawomirX <slawomirx.mrozowicz at intel.com>; >dev at dpdk.org; david.marchand at 6wind.com >Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] eal: out-of-bounds write > >On 20/06/2016 11:09, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> 2016-06-20 10:38, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: >>> On 20/06/2016 10:14, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>>> + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, >>>>> + "All memory segments exhausted by IVSHMEM. " >>>> There is no evidence that it is related to IVSHMEM. >>>> "Not enough memory segments." would be more appropriate. >>> Actually we would hit this issue when all memsegs have been used by >IVSHMEM. >>> So I think the message is accurate. >> I think it's saner to avoid mixing "potential root cause of a use >> case" and "accurate description of the error". >> One day, the root cause could be different and the message will become >wrong. >> Here there is not enough memory segment. >> > >Right. >So the whole point of doing the check before the loop was to display the error >message with its specific cause. > >I would think that if the code changes and the message is not accurate then it >should also be updated. > >So if folks prefer a more generic error message probably we don't need the >check before the loop and just change the check condition inside the loop that >would end up printing the generic error message (after the loop). > >Basically v1 would do that. >http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12241/ > >Sergio
