[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] eal: don't crash if alarm set fails

[Thomas Monjalon]

26/07/2018 11:41, Burakov, Anatoly:
> On 25-Jul-18 7:20 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > There is no need to call rte_exit and crash the application here;
> > better to let the application handle the error itself.
> > 
> > Remove the gratuitous profanity which would be visible if
> > the rte_exit was still there.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin at microsoft.com>
> > ---
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c
> > @@ -841,14 +841,12 @@ mp_request_async(const char *dst, struct rte_mp_msg *req,
> >   
> >   	param->user_reply.nb_sent++;
> >   
> > -	if (rte_eal_alarm_set(ts->tv_sec * 1000000 + ts->tv_nsec / 1000,
> > -			      async_reply_handle, pending_req) < 0) {
> > +	ret = rte_eal_alarm_set(ts->tv_sec * 1000000 + ts->tv_nsec / 1000,
> > +				async_reply_handle, pending_req);
> > +	if (ret < 0)
> >   		RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Fail to set alarm for request %s:%s\n",
> >   			dst, req->name);
> > -		rte_panic("Fix the above shit to properly free all memory\n");
> 
> Profanity aside, i think the message was trying to tell me something - 
> namely, that if alarm_set fails, we're risking to leak this memory if 
> reply from the peer never comes, and we're risking leaving the 
> application hanging because the timeout never triggers. I'm not sure if 
> leaving this "to the user" is the right choice, because there is no way 
> for the user to free IPC-internal memory if it leaks.
> 
> So i think the proper way to handle this would've been to set the alarm 
> first, then, if it fails, don't sent the message in the first place.

What should be done here? OK to remove rte_panic for now?