[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 08/10] net/sfc: support action VXLAN ENCAP in MAE backend
Ivan Malov
Ivan.Malov at oktetlabs.ru
Thu Apr 1 01:36:42 CEST 2021
Hi,
On 01/04/2021 02:21, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 12/03/2021 12:07, Ivan Malov:
>> +static int
>> +sfc_mae_encap_header_add(struct sfc_adapter *sa,
>> + const struct sfc_mae_bounce_eh *bounce_eh,
>> + struct sfc_mae_encap_header **encap_headerp)
>> +{
>> + struct sfc_mae_encap_header *encap_header;
>> + struct sfc_mae *mae = &sa->mae;
>> +
>> + SFC_ASSERT(sfc_adapter_is_locked(sa));
>> +
>> + encap_header = rte_zmalloc("sfc_mae_encap_header",
>> + sizeof(*encap_header), 0);
>> + if (encap_header == NULL)
>> + return ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + encap_header->size = bounce_eh->size;
>> +
>> + encap_header->buf = rte_malloc("sfc_mae_encap_header_buf",
>> + encap_header->size, 0);
>> + if (encap_header->buf == NULL) {
>> + rte_free(encap_header);
>> + return ENOMEM;
>> + }
>
> Are the error codes positives on purpose?
> checkpatch is throwing this warning:
> USE_NEGATIVE_ERRNO: return of an errno should typically be negative (ie: return -ENOMEM)
Kind of yes, on purpose. It has been like that for a long time already;
it's simpler to keep errors positive in all such small internal helpers
and then negate the result in the place where rte_flow_error_set() is
used. We understand the concern of yours; our code is tested for error
path correctness every now and again. If there're some inconsistencies,
we are ready to fix such in no time.
> Also the base code has a lot of these warnings:
> RETURN_PARENTHESES: return is not a function, parentheses are not required
>
> I guess you cannot do anything to avoid it in base code?
Yes, your understanding is correct. Sorry for the inconvenience.
--
Ivan M
More information about the dev
mailing list