[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: unify error code if port ID is invalid

Ferruh Yigit ferruh.yigit at intel.com
Sat Oct 17 01:43:05 CEST 2020


On 10/16/2020 10:58 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 10/16/2020 1:05 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 10/13/2020 4:32 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2020 3:53 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>> Use ENODEV as the error code if specified port ID is invalid.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko at solarflare.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++----------------
>>>>   lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>>   2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>>> index 5b7979a3b8..1f862f918a 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>>> @@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_get_name_by_port(uint16_t port_id, char *name)
>>>>   {
>>>>       char *tmp;
>>>> -    RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -EINVAL);
>>>> +    RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
>>>
>>> Thanks Andrew, +1 to this error unification.
>>>
>>> This will be API change without deprecation notice, cc'ed techboard for it.
>>>
>>> If this should (almost) always return '-ENODEV', does it make sense to make 
>>> another wrapper macro for it, to prevent later other error types used again.
>>>
>>> And there are a few instances returning '-1', are they left intentionally?
>>>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
>  >
> 
> Applied to dpdk-next-net/main, thanks.
 >

There are some bitratestats unit tests, that checks APIs with invalid port_id. 
Unit tests checks return values as '-EINVAL', they also should be updated as 
'-ENODEV' with this patch.

Adding following update to this patch in next-net

  diff --git a/app/test/test_bitratestats.c b/app/test/test_bitratestats.c
  index 39d7f734d4..fb4203c57b 100644
  --- a/app/test/test_bitratestats.c
  +++ b/app/test/test_bitratestats.c
  @@ -99,8 +99,8 @@ test_stats_bitrate_calc_invalid_portid_1(void)
          int ret = 0;

          ret = rte_stats_bitrate_calc(bitrate_data, 33);
  -       TEST_ASSERT(ret == -EINVAL, "Test Failed: Expected -%d for higher "
  -                       "portid rte_stats_bitrate_calc ret:%d", EINVAL, ret);
  +       TEST_ASSERT(ret == -ENODEV, "Test Failed: Expected -%d for higher "
  +                       "portid rte_stats_bitrate_calc ret:%d", ENODEV, ret);

          return TEST_SUCCESS;
   }
  @@ -112,8 +112,8 @@ test_stats_bitrate_calc_invalid_portid_2(void)
          int ret = 0;

          ret = rte_stats_bitrate_calc(bitrate_data, -1);
  -       TEST_ASSERT(ret == -EINVAL, "Test Failed: Expected -%d for invalid "
  -                       "portid rte_stats_bitrate_calc ret:%d", EINVAL, ret);
  +       TEST_ASSERT(ret == -ENODEV, "Test Failed: Expected -%d for invalid "
  +                       "portid rte_stats_bitrate_calc ret:%d", ENODEV, ret);

          return TEST_SUCCESS;
   }
  @@ -125,9 +125,9 @@ test_stats_bitrate_calc_non_existing_portid(void)
          int ret = 0;

          ret = rte_stats_bitrate_calc(bitrate_data, 31);
  -       TEST_ASSERT(ret ==  -EINVAL, "Test Failed: Expected -%d for "
  +       TEST_ASSERT(ret ==  -ENODEV, "Test Failed: Expected -%d for "
                          "non-existing portid rte_stats_bitrate_calc ret:%d",
  -                       EINVAL, ret);
  +                       ENODEV, ret);

          return TEST_SUCCESS;
   }


More information about the dev mailing list