[dpdk-dev] Questions about API with no parameter check

[Ananyev, Konstantin]

> 07/04/2021 13:28, Min Hu (Connor):
> > Hi, all,
> > 	Many APIs in DPDK does not check if the pointer parameter is
> > NULL or not. For example, in 'rte_ethdev.c':
> > int
> > rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t rx_queue_id,
> > 		       uint16_t nb_rx_desc, unsigned int socket_id,
> > 		       const struct rte_eth_rxconf *rx_conf,
> > 		       struct rte_mempool *mp)
> >
> > int
> > rte_eth_link_get(uint16_t port_id, struct rte_eth_link *eth_link)
> >
> > int
> > rte_eth_stats_get(uint16_t port_id, struct rte_eth_stats *stats)
> >
> > int
> > rte_eth_dev_info_get(uint16_t port_id, struct rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info)
> >
> > As these APIs could be used by any APPs, if the APP give NULL as
> > the pointer parameter, segmetation default will occur.
> >
> > So, my question is, should we add check in the API? like that,
> > int rte_eth_stats_get(uint16_t port_id, struct rte_eth_stats *stats)
> > {
> > 	if (stats == NULL)
> > 		return -EINVAL;
> > 	...
> > }
> >
> > Or, that is redundant, the parameter correctness should be guaranteed by
> > the APP?
> >
> > What's your opinion? Hope for your reply.
> 
> I remember it has been discussed in the past (many years ago),
> and the opinion was to not clutter the code for something that
> is a basic fault from the app.
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion.
> What is your opinion? Others?

As I can see these are control path functions.
So some extra formal parameters check wouldn't hurt.
+1 from me to add them.
Konstantin