Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/linux: fix return after alarm registration failure

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

26/06/2019 13:20, David Marchand:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:41 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > When adding an alarm, if an error happen when registering
> > the common alarm callback, it is not considered as a major failure.
> > The alarm is then inserted in the list.
> > However it was returning an error code after inserting the alarm.
> >
> > The error code is reset to 0 so the behaviour and the return code
> > are consistent.
> > Other return code related lines are cleaned up for easier understanding.
> >
[...]
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c
> >         if (!handler_registered) {
> > -               ret |= rte_intr_callback_register(&intr_handle,
> > +               ret = rte_intr_callback_register(&intr_handle,
> >                                 eal_alarm_callback, NULL);
> > -               handler_registered = (ret == 0) ? 1 : 0;
> > +               if (ret == 0)
> > +                       handler_registered = 1;
> > +               else
> > +                       /* not fatal, callback can be registered later */
> > +                       ret = 0;
> >         }
> 
> Well, then it means that you don't want to touch ret at all.
> How about:
> if (rte_intr_callback_register(&intr_handle,
>                                eal_alarm_callback, NULL) == 0)
>         handler_registered = 1;
> 
> ?

Too much simple :)

I think we try to avoid calling a function in a "if"
per coding style.
And my proposal has the benefit of offering a comment
about the non-fatal error.

After saying these arguments, I have to say I have no strong opinion :)
I'm fine either way.