DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Min Hu (Connor)" <humin29@huawei.com>
To: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	Andrew Rybchenko <Andrew.Rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
	Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: [dpdk-dev] Questions about API with no parameter check
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 19:28:18 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6114bde2-423a-da82-ac4d-608141235e39@huawei.com> (raw)

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.
	Thanks.

             reply	other threads:[~2021-04-07 11:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-07 11:28 Min Hu (Connor) [this message]
2021-04-07 11:40 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-07 11:48   ` Liang Ma
2021-04-07 11:53   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-04-07 13:19     ` Jerin Jacob
2021-04-07 14:40       ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-04-07 15:25         ` Hemant Agrawal
2021-04-07 16:10           ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-07 16:26             ` Burakov, Anatoly
2021-04-08  1:06               ` Min Hu (Connor)
2021-04-08  8:22                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-08  9:00                   ` Min Hu (Connor)
2021-04-29 16:16             ` Tyler Retzlaff
2021-04-29 18:49               ` Dmitry Kozlyuk
2021-04-30  0:15                 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2021-05-03 15:19                   ` Morten Brørup
2021-05-04  9:36                 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-05-05 15:58                   ` Tyler Retzlaff

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=6114bde2-423a-da82-ac4d-608141235e39@huawei.com \
    --to=humin29@huawei.com \
    --cc=Andrew.Rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).