From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09293A046B for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 13:43:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE8D4F64; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 13:43:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 791152AB for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 13:43:18 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Jun 2019 04:43:16 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,419,1557212400"; d="scan'208";a="337182373" Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.101]) ([10.237.220.101]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2019 04:43:15 -0700 To: David Marchand , Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev References: <20190626104056.26829-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <2203940.txDa9y0fLx@xps> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: <305b244d-ef0a-937b-9628-94aaede96b27@intel.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:43:14 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/linux: fix return after alarm registration failure X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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 26-Jun-19 12:39 PM, David Marchand wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 1:36 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >> 26/06/2019 13:20, David Marchand: >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:41 PM Thomas Monjalon >>> 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. >> > > /* not fatal, callback can be registered later */ > if (rte_intr_callback_register(&intr_handle, > eal_alarm_callback, NULL) == 0) > handler_registered = 1; > I prefer the original. It's more explicit and conveys the intention better. Did i break the tie? :) -- Thanks, Anatoly