From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F3BA0A0E; Tue, 11 May 2021 16:41:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1925740140; Tue, 11 May 2021 16:41:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 492E64003E; Tue, 11 May 2021 16:41:27 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: 6PsJY+uALrJugGOubBpvTzYJytP5OFDavAfQn9DiTwNI+DfSDhD2tcOOSzWU8oJp6ghQuF8l53 8ZK7ody4/hKg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,9981"; a="186897729" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,291,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="186897729" Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 May 2021 07:41:20 -0700 IronPort-SDR: U6sJuPgn6GJV3B72GKVKrNV1misQfXJMm98Paa9Y/MGIhvl7BJ33YhQr2ZDXyC8KvzlW3f5WC7 fs07o8FK8NFQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,291,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="434474047" Received: from dhunt5-mobl5.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.252.18.109]) ([10.252.18.109]) by fmsmga008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 May 2021 07:41:19 -0700 To: "Pattan, Reshma" , "dev@dpdk.org" Cc: "stable@dpdk.org" References: <20210422144030.16746-1-david.hunt@intel.com> From: David Hunt Message-ID: <0bfabeed-8b2c-486f-6578-88143ccb5121@intel.com> Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 15:41:04 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/4] test/power: fix check for cpu frequency X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 29/4/2021 11:34 AM, Pattan, Reshma wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dev On Behalf Of David Hunt >> +TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_SCALING_FREQ, lcore_id) < 0) { >> return 0; > [Reshma]: Do we need to return -1 here and in other failure scenarios below. Hi Reshma, We might do, but that's not something I had intended to address in this patch set. We should look at this in a future patch, OK? Rgds, Dave.