The documentation says that CONFIG_ENABLE_LTO enables LTO during the
build, but the correct value actually is CONFIG_RTE_ENABLE_LTO
Fixes: 098cc0fea3be ("build: add option to enable LTO")
Signed-off-by: Matteo Croce
---
doc/guides/prog_guide/lto.rst | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 inser
DPDK polls the packet in a busy loop. This means that CPU constantly spins
looking for packets, regardless of the network traffic.
DPDK does this to reduce latency and avoid using interrupts, at expense of
efficiency: this might consume more processing power and generate more heat
than needed, pote
Is this an intended behaviour? Should the fields be aligned?
Regards,
--
Matteo Croce
per aspera ad upstream
, 0, sizeof(tmp));
>
> - snprintf(tmp2, sizeof(tmp2), "%s", CIRBUF_STR_HEAD);
> + strlcpy(tmp2, CIRBUF_STR_HEAD, sizeof(tmp2));
>
> /*
> * initialize circular buffer
> diff --git a/test/test/test_eal_flags.c b/test/test/test_eal_flags.c
> index 37c42efe8..93eb7a481 100644
> --- a/test/test/test_eal_flags.c
> +++ b/test/test/test_eal_flags.c
> @@ -1151,11 +1151,12 @@ test_memory_flags(void)
> /* add one extra socket */
> for (i = 0; i < num_sockets + 1; i++) {
> snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%s%s", invalid_socket_mem,
> DEFAULT_MEM_SIZE);
> - snprintf(invalid_socket_mem, sizeof(invalid_socket_mem),
> "%s", buf);
> + strlcpy(invalid_socket_mem, buf, sizeof(invalid_socket_mem));
>
> if (num_sockets + 1 - i > 1) {
> snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%s,", invalid_socket_mem);
> - snprintf(invalid_socket_mem,
> sizeof(invalid_socket_mem), "%s", buf);
> + strlcpy(invalid_socket_mem, buf,
> + sizeof(invalid_socket_mem));
> }
> }
>
> @@ -1167,11 +1168,12 @@ test_memory_flags(void)
> /* add one extra socket */
> for (i = 0; i < num_sockets; i++) {
> snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%s%s", valid_socket_mem,
> DEFAULT_MEM_SIZE);
> - snprintf(valid_socket_mem, sizeof(valid_socket_mem), "%s",
> buf);
> + strlcpy(valid_socket_mem, buf, sizeof(valid_socket_mem));
>
> if (num_sockets - i > 1) {
> snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%s,", valid_socket_mem);
> - snprintf(valid_socket_mem, sizeof(valid_socket_mem),
> "%s", buf);
> + strlcpy(valid_socket_mem, buf,
> + sizeof(valid_socket_mem));
> }
> }
>
> diff --git a/test/test/test_malloc.c b/test/test/test_malloc.c
> index d23192cf1..ccc5feaec 100644
> --- a/test/test/test_malloc.c
> +++ b/test/test/test_malloc.c
> @@ -378,7 +378,7 @@ test_realloc(void)
> printf("NULL pointer returned from rte_zmalloc\n");
> return -1;
> }
> - snprintf(ptr1, size1, "%s" ,hello_str);
> + strlcpy(ptr1, hello_str, size1);
> char *ptr2 = rte_realloc(ptr1, size2, RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE);
> if (!ptr2){
> rte_free(ptr1);
> --
> 2.14.3
>
Safety first, looks good to me.
--
Matteo Croce
per aspera ad upstream
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Matteo Croce wrote:
> Fix a printf warning which made the compilation fail when compiling
> with GCC 7.2 and -Werror:
>
> error: format %llu expects argument of type long long unsigned int,
> but argument 8 has type u64 {aka long unsigned int}
Fix a printf warning which made the compilation fail when compiling
with GCC 7.2 and -Werror:
error: format %llu expects argument of type long long unsigned int,
but argument 8 has type u64 {aka long unsigned int} [-Werror=format=]
Signed-off-by: Matteo Croce
---
v2:
- used PRI*64 macros
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Kyle Larose wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Matteo Croce
>> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 1:23 PM
>> To: dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] i40
Fix a printf warning which made the compilation fail when compiling
with GCC 7.2 and -Werror:
error: format ‘%llu’ expects argument of type ‘long long unsigned int’,
but argument 8 has type ‘u64 {aka long unsigned int}’ [-Werror=format=]
Signed-off-by: Matteo Croce
---
drivers/net/i40e
8 matches
Mail list logo