[dpdk-users] A confusion caused by the inconsistency in the source code of acl_gen.c. A possible bug?

[Wu, Xiaoban]

Dear DPDK users,


I have been reading and studying the source codes of the librte_acl, since I am very curious to know how to algorithmically implement a fast lookup process.


When I read the function acl_add_ptrs() in the acl_gen.c, there is one comment saying that

/*
* Rather than going from 0 to 256, the range count and
* the layout are from 80-ff then 0-7f due to signed compare
* for SSE (cmpgt).
*/


However, in the following codes, it is


              for (x = QRANGE_MIN + 1; x < UINT8_MAX + 1; x++) {
if (dfa[x] != index) {
index = dfa[x];
*node_a++ = index;
node->transitions[m++] = (uint8_t)(x - 1);
}
}

for (x = 0; x < INT8_MAX + 1; x++) {
if (dfa[x] != index) {
index = dfa[x];
*node_a++ = index;
node->transitions[m++] = (uint8_t)(x - 1);
}
}


As you can see that there are two for-loops, and the second for-loop include the first for-loop. And, this is not consistent with the comment. If the comment is followed, in the second for-loop, it should be "for (x = 0; x < QRANGE_MIN + 1; x++)", if we assume QRANGE_MIN is ff?


Moreover, due to that the first for-loop is included in the second for-loop and the "m" variable is increased by 1 whenever the if-statement is true, I am thinking about a case in which during the first for-loop, the "m" is increased by 3, hence after the second for-loop, the "m" is at least 6, this will finally break the check RTE_ACL_VERIFY(m <= RTE_ACL_QUAD_SIZE) in the following code, since RTE_ACL_QUAD_SIZE is 4. I am wondering if this case will ever happen?


Am I missing something here? Thanks very much for your help.


Best wishes,

Xiaoban