[PATCH] app/testpmd: fix action destruction memory leak

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 11/18/2022 12:21 PM, Suanming Mou wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at amd.com>
>> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2022 6:40 PM
>> To: Suanming Mou <suanmingm at nvidia.com>; david.marchand at redhat.com;
>> Aman Singh <aman.deep.singh at intel.com>; Yuying Zhang
>> <yuying.zhang at intel.com>
>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
>> 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 <suanmingm at nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>>  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.