[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/6] ethdev: add devop to check removal status
Thomas Monjalon
thomas at monjalon.net
Tue Dec 19 21:51:10 CET 2017
19/12/2017 18:24, Matan Azrad:
> HI
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 7:20 PM
> > To: Matan Azrad <matan at mellanox.com>
> > Cc: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> > <thomas at monjalon.net>; Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet at 6wind.com>;
> > dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/6] ethdev: add devop to check removal
> > status
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:10:10 +0000
> > Matan Azrad <matan at mellanox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > int
> > > +rte_eth_dev_is_removed(uint16_t port_id) {
> > > + struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, 0);
> > > +
> > > + dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
> > > +
> > > + RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->is_removed, 0);
> > > +
> > > + if (dev->state == RTE_ETH_DEV_REMOVED)
> > > + return 1;
> > > +
> > > + ret = dev->dev_ops->is_removed(dev);
> > > + if (ret != 0)
> > > + dev->state = RTE_ETH_DEV_REMOVED;
> > > +
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > This looks good.
> > May be a candidate to use bool instead of int for return value?
>
> Yes, I thought about it but didn't see any precedence for bool usage in ethdev APIs.
> Guys, what do you think?
I think this function can return error, isn't it?
(look at macros *_OR_ERR_RET used in the function)
More information about the dev
mailing list