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 5956BA0532 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:52:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A7F1BF7C; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:52:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6A9A3; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:52:34 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Feb 2020 22:52:32 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,424,1574150400"; d="scan'208";a="431512615" Received: from yexl-server.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.67.117.17]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2020 22:52:31 -0800 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:51:18 +0800 From: Ye Xiaolong To: "Li, Xiaoyun" Cc: "Kovacevic, Marko" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "stable@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20200210065118.GA80720@intel.com> References: <20200210030757.11426-1-xiaoyun.li@intel.com> <20200210033637.GA79789@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] examples/tep_term: fix return value check X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" On 02/10, Li, Xiaoyun wrote: >Hi > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ye, Xiaolong >> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 11:37 >> To: Li, Xiaoyun >> Cc: Kovacevic, Marko ; dev@dpdk.org; >> stable@dpdk.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] examples/tep_term: fix return value check >> >> On 02/10, Xiaoyun Li wrote: >> >Added return value check for 'rte_eth_dev_info_get()'. >> > >> >Coverity issue: 349922 >> >Fixes: 2bb43bd4350a ("examples/tep_term: add TSO offload configuration") >> >Cc: stable@dpdk.org >> > >> >Signed-off-by: Xiaoyun Li >> >--- >> > examples/tep_termination/vxlan_setup.c | 4 +++- >> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> >diff --git a/examples/tep_termination/vxlan_setup.c >> b/examples/tep_termination/vxlan_setup.c >> >index eca119a72..bd469f5f4 100644 >> >--- a/examples/tep_termination/vxlan_setup.c >> >+++ b/examples/tep_termination/vxlan_setup.c >> >@@ -195,7 +195,9 @@ vxlan_port_init(uint16_t port, struct rte_mempool >> *mbuf_pool) >> > >> > if (tso_segsz != 0) { >> > struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info; >> >- rte_eth_dev_info_get(port, &dev_info); >> >+ retval = rte_eth_dev_info_get(port, &dev_info); >> >+ if (retval != 0) >> >+ return -retval; >> >> why return -retval not retval? > >The description of return value of rte_eth_dev_info_get() is like the following: >@return > * - (0) if successful. > * - (-ENOTSUP) if support for dev_infos_get() does not exist for the device. > * - (-ENODEV) if *port_id* invalid. >So -retval is the real err code. >But the check of this function (vxlan_port_init) is (overlay_options.port_configure(portid, mbuf_pool) != 0) >So return -retval or retval are both OK. Better to align with other return val checks in this function to return retval. Thanks, Xiaolong >> >> Thanks, >> Xiaolong >> >> > if ((dev_info.tx_offload_capa & DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_TSO) >> == 0) >> > RTE_LOG(WARNING, PORT, >> > "hardware TSO offload is not supported\n"); >> >-- >> >2.17.1 >> >