[dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] kni: fix crash for KNI interface remove

[Yuanhan Liu]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 01:26:20PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 9/26/2016 1:15 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:21:12AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >> On 9/26/2016 9:34 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:46:01PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>> 2016-08-31 14:06, Ferruh Yigit:
> >>>>> Removing KNI interface that has no PCI driver for ethtool support cause
> >>>>> kernel crash.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fixes: 109febfe58f9 ("net/igb: move PCI device IDs from EAL")
> >>>>> Fixes: 221fba3b987c ("net/ixgbe: move PCI device IDs from EAL")
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Applied, thanks
> >>>
> >>> FYI, this patch has been applied to stable branch v16.07.
> >>>
> >>> It hasn't been pushed to http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk-stable/ yet.
> >>> It will be pushed if I get no objections in around TWO days. So 
> >>> please shutout if you have objections.
> >>
> >> If the patches mentioned in Fixes line applied to stable branch, this
> >> one also should be applied.
> > 
> > Thanks for the response.
> > 
> > It might address the conflict issue, 
> 
> Which conflict issue?
> 
> > but with a simple glimpse, the
> > build issue might still remain. Say, commit 109febfe58f9 ("net/igb: move
> > PCI device IDs from EAL") will not be applied (as there is no fixline),
> 
> 109febfe58f9 & 221fba3b987c are in fixes line of this patch.

Oh, I see. You were fixing an issue that introduced in v16.11, but not
v16.07. Then there is no reason to put it into v16.07 stable release.
My bad, I should have checked the fixline more carefully!

BTW, may I ask some helps from you? As I said in another email, I saw
quite many bug fixing patches for KNI. Would you help to list few (if
any) that need be picked for v16.07 release? I mean, some bug fixing
patches that fix some bugs before v16.07 (inclusive).

	--yliu

> 
> > but it is required by commit 5544a453b4ac ("kni: fix crash when removing
> > interface"), if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> I am not clear with question but, the issue is:
> 109febfe58f9 & 221fba3b987c creates a defect and this patch fixes it.
> 
> If both 109febfe58f9 or 221fba3b987c get into stable tree, this patch
> needs to get in to fix crash. If you prefer to get one of them (although
> that doesn't make much sense), a backported version of this patch needs
> to be applied.
> 
> > 
> > Or, I'm wrong?
> > 
> > 	--yliu
> >