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

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 10/13/2020 4:39 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> On 10/13/20 6:32 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.
> 
> Yes, thanks.
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Unlikely, since most likely the line will be simply copied.
> RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET will remain in any case, so
> it will be possible to misuse it anyway.
> 

Agree it won't prevent misuse completely but may help, anyway I don't have a 
strong opinion here, if you think that is not needed, that is OK.

>>
>> And there are a few instances returning '-1', are they left intentionally?
> 
> Yes. Inside ethdev it is either socket_id or fd in these cases.
> 

Can't those two also updated to return '-ENODEV' when 'port_id' is not valid?