From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/linux: fix return after alarm registration failure
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 13:39:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJFAV8wmMwEptNhM8X-jSwrSA6d4Aean_c53LP3=6L7zLpPnaQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2203940.txDa9y0fLx@xps>
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 1:36 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
/* not fatal, callback can be registered later */
if (rte_intr_callback_register(&intr_handle,
eal_alarm_callback, NULL) == 0)
handler_registered = 1;
> After saying these arguments, I have to say I have no strong opinion :)
> I'm fine either way.
>
Reviewed-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
I won't insist either, if you feel like taking my proposal, you can keep
the reviewed-by token.
--
David Marchand
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-26 11:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-26 10:40 Thomas Monjalon
2019-06-26 11:20 ` David Marchand
2019-06-26 11:36 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-06-26 11:39 ` David Marchand [this message]
2019-06-26 11:43 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-06-26 11:55 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-06-26 12:36 ` Bruce Richardson
2019-06-26 12:52 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-06-26 13:20 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-06-26 14:02 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Thomas Monjalon
2019-06-26 23:09 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-06-27 15:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Thomas Monjalon
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='CAJFAV8wmMwEptNhM8X-jSwrSA6d4Aean_c53LP3=6L7zLpPnaQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--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).