From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5716EA00C3;
	Wed,  7 Dec 2022 23:33:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39ABC40F17;
	Wed,  7 Dec 2022 23:33:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from linux.microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182])
 by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8EE40146
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  7 Dec 2022 23:33:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1086)
 id 29EA320B6C40; Wed,  7 Dec 2022 14:33:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 29EA320B6C40
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com;
 s=default; t=1670452411;
 bh=kRx6gTqyxK9wMvPg46isKr8CHl3k0CU1PQWx1yEjkOg=;
 h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
 b=ob+39pRWvh+0u2WkHfFdwDj4d921X3rdmLvM0IHvfuq3aA6LxR2JFQFOghPKGhjsp
 liIy/d+QcKoREHdOYc5Vpqefup9laZigKftH1YbcAPsFQqJlO9WCymGBnxKraPCXJY
 uaiDRU8gvtyT5i5lr/0qudvF+HayHXku/dkwPYvg=
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 14:33:31 -0800
From: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net, david.marchand@redhat.com,
 olivier.matz@6wind.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] eal: add lcore set name and get name API
Message-ID: <20221207223331.GA26293@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net>
References: <1670439617-9054-1-git-send-email-roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
 <1670439617-9054-2-git-send-email-roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20221207130341.30d6f22f@hermes.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221207130341.30d6f22f@hermes.local>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org

On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 01:03:41PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed,  7 Dec 2022 11:00:13 -0800
> Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> > +static char lcore_names[RTE_MAX_LCORE][RTE_LCORE_NAME_MAX_LEN];
> 
> This copy would redundant on Linux.
> 
> > +
> > +int
> > +rte_lcore_set_name(unsigned int lcore_id, const char *name)
> > +{
> > +	if (unlikely(lcore_id >= RTE_MAX_LCORE))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	if (strlen(name) >= RTE_LCORE_NAME_MAX_LEN)
> > +		return -ERANGE;
> > +
> > +	(void)strcpy(&lcore_names[lcore_id][0], name);
> 
> Why the void cast?

it's a common convention used in various open source projects indicating
the that ignoring the return value is intentional as opposed to being
sloppy or accidental.

if it's a violation of dpdk style i'll remove it. but i have come across
a lot of dpdk code where i honestly can't tell if it is on purpose or
just sloppyness. (sticks out in code reviews too).