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 7231F45B54;
Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:11:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A67D402D8;
Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:11:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-pj1-f43.google.com (mail-pj1-f43.google.com
[209.85.216.43]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C2B5402B5
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:11:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pj1-f43.google.com with SMTP id
98e67ed59e1d1-2e2eb9dde40so36032a91.0
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=networkplumber-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1729098665;
x=1729703465; darn=dpdk.org;
h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to
:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date
:message-id:reply-to;
bh=HMJGytQHl+KphRdR7R/fJ0E5MAD/HUT1IQztO9P7VHk=;
b=tzd1n7SAfKe6SVSPUtF88OpWGwog1EBcN3U3mDKy9uOqIdvFKY6Wi8gWV6EflQG9Kt
F/c9GgE672g4Gz/PnJUuy3fn/mZOGQ+p5EaL6oK+gMzWL+LBNlT3JHHEYWqiP/8UVZbd
jMRiSfmsiAG1bcdQimJ/8CsgQNsM8H6ij+zz0I8myiEp0FArItQR2hCArw47pHJfBSGb
XvEaiu3hWvQj1Eas3fSie2OMv3xHe95xbfios4CSCL+w5r9/vqFZaSvZF+TDQE1xJ95N
t5giUEzaZ8/WDuh7JOEnTYIP+yyVMxF6qd2oGDb++7+wpCjJ6o10z0CwpQk2DdgT7zoG
47EA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1729098665; x=1729703465;
h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to
:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc
:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
bh=HMJGytQHl+KphRdR7R/fJ0E5MAD/HUT1IQztO9P7VHk=;
b=UTQitRpg1Bes+jVInlAkdgl0ueHKDMKykt/Fmf6KJy1UO0n79UxAb3w7LoMPHpi3u7
m967qjgMMjBRiPCeMGljDR59jjqpVbn03Z0CzLlW1w/NGFTBskfd/DmrfZ+nWfHSrec3
vN23KwcYC/W52Sl3Euj8FmF2X7F/ypxH9JgOPMHdsaHyvM/nFvht7+AB3Pq0AO9/EPxi
vV9TxYs+KZr8ECIQOdT7dQciAjhgqM7O0apytFVPAP+v/sicgJN3rCD/zgFpFg+vdk2L
IweNnP5mATKkrWkzEYgx7rQ7S39f34tdFVAWC847tkSDRZXOnSlJJWS1aLvKHcFs9LdU
bAWQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyxKh8EP2AnXXtYGTHN7f+XNOS7ZOcL1AN6DRTUYs03t2pi6LH3
yO/3gjKnYkrZm/Yd14LGrgk6uKbuBpBZ9a2o6URW2MdduCgrPoR9oicTk0tYcVk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFPxsi4+jUsk8DYS3k7yuQR2CenZoJgBBL62DPxCGqroOb1uhXqPbQagH4p3LL1BmY2sViL+Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:f3c9:b0:2e2:b6ef:1611 with SMTP id
98e67ed59e1d1-2e2f0b00201mr21474669a91.18.1729098665499;
Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.local (204-195-96-226.wavecable.com. [204.195.96.226])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
98e67ed59e1d1-2e3e08cea26sm4250a91.14.2024.10.16.10.11.05
(version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256);
Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:11:03 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: "Medvedkin, Vladimir" <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>, <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fib: fix return value behavior
Message-ID: <20241016101103.5dc11ee0@hermes.local>
In-Reply-To: <32794ecc-51f7-49db-af7f-0dd0c612448e@intel.com>
References: <20241015171143.497709-1-vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
<20241015222938.359f7193@hermes.local>
<32794ecc-51f7-49db-af7f-0dd0c612448e@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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, 16 Oct 2024 16:59:48 +0100
"Medvedkin, Vladimir" <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On 16/10/2024 06:29, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 17:11:43 +0000
> > Vladimir Medvedkin<vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Fixes the behavior of the rte_fib_rcu_qsbr_add() function regarding its
> >> return value to align with the existing rte_fib API.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 96c3d06a3547 ("fib: implement RCU rule reclamation")
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Medvedkin<vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
> >> ---
> > Looks good, although DPDK often uses rte_errno, it is better for this part
> > in fib to be consistent across rcu and non-rcu variants.
> Iwouldpreferit tobeconsistentwith the restof the FIBAPI.
> > PS: there don't seem to be any negative tests on this function in test_fib.c
> > would be good to hit some of the basics.
> maybeIdidn'tquiteunderstandyou,butthere is basic negative teston
> thisfunction (plz see test_invalid_rcu() test)
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Stephen Hemminger<stephen@networkplumber.org>
>
The test_fib does not do any tests where it calls these functions with
bad arguments and expects failure. Mostly it tries to do normal calls.