Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 08/10] net/sfc: support action VXLAN ENCAP in MAE backend

[Ivan Malov <Ivan.Malov@oktetlabs.ru>]

Hi,

On 01/04/2021 02:21, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 12/03/2021 12:07, Ivan Malov:
>> +static int
>> +sfc_mae_encap_header_add(struct sfc_adapter *sa,
>> +			 const struct sfc_mae_bounce_eh *bounce_eh,
>> +			 struct sfc_mae_encap_header **encap_headerp)
>> +{
>> +	struct sfc_mae_encap_header *encap_header;
>> +	struct sfc_mae *mae = &sa->mae;
>> +
>> +	SFC_ASSERT(sfc_adapter_is_locked(sa));
>> +
>> +	encap_header = rte_zmalloc("sfc_mae_encap_header",
>> +				   sizeof(*encap_header), 0);
>> +	if (encap_header == NULL)
>> +		return ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +	encap_header->size = bounce_eh->size;
>> +
>> +	encap_header->buf = rte_malloc("sfc_mae_encap_header_buf",
>> +				       encap_header->size, 0);
>> +	if (encap_header->buf == NULL) {
>> +		rte_free(encap_header);
>> +		return ENOMEM;
>> +	}
> 
> Are the error codes positives on purpose?
> checkpatch is throwing this warning:
> USE_NEGATIVE_ERRNO: return of an errno should typically be negative (ie: return -ENOMEM)

Kind of yes, on purpose. It has been like that for a long time already; 
it's simpler to keep errors positive in all such small internal helpers 
and then negate the result in the place where rte_flow_error_set() is 
used. We understand the concern of yours; our code is tested for error 
path correctness every now and again. If there're some inconsistencies, 
we are ready to fix such in no time.

> Also the base code has a lot of these warnings:
> RETURN_PARENTHESES: return is not a function, parentheses are not required
> 
> I guess you cannot do anything to avoid it in base code?

Yes, your understanding is correct. Sorry for the inconvenience.

-- 
Ivan M