[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/linux: fix return after alarm registration failure

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/linux: fix return after alarm registration failure

[Thomas Monjalon]

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.

Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
---
 lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c | 8 ++++++--
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c
index 840ede780..d6d70e8c3 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c
@@ -137,9 +137,13 @@ rte_eal_alarm_set(uint64_t us, rte_eal_alarm_callback cb_fn, void *cb_arg)
 
 	rte_spinlock_lock(&alarm_list_lk);
 	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;
 	}
 
 	if (LIST_EMPTY(&alarm_list))
-- 
2.21.0

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/linux: fix return after alarm registration failure

[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.
>
> Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> ---
>  lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c | 8 ++++++--
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c
> index 840ede780..d6d70e8c3 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c
> @@ -137,9 +137,13 @@ rte_eal_alarm_set(uint64_t us, rte_eal_alarm_callback
> cb_fn, void *cb_arg)
>
>         rte_spinlock_lock(&alarm_list_lk);
>         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;
>         }
>
>         if (LIST_EMPTY(&alarm_list))
>

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;

?


-- 
David Marchand

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/linux: fix return after alarm registration failure

[Thomas Monjalon]

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.

After saying these arguments, I have to say I have no strong opinion :)
I'm fine either way.

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/linux: fix return after alarm registration failure

[David Marchand]

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

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/linux: fix return after alarm registration failure

[Burakov, Anatoly]

On 26-Jun-19 12:39 PM, David Marchand wrote:
> 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;
> 

I prefer the original. It's more explicit and conveys the intention 
better. Did i break the tie? :)

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/linux: fix return after alarm registration failure

[Thomas Monjalon]

26/06/2019 13:43, Burakov, Anatoly:
> On 26-Jun-19 12:39 PM, David Marchand wrote:
> > 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;
> > 
> 
> I prefer the original. It's more explicit and conveys the intention 
> better. Did i break the tie? :)

I was going to send a v2 with David's suggestion.
Now I'm confused.

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/linux: fix return after alarm registration failure

[Bruce Richardson]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 01:55:53PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 26/06/2019 13:43, Burakov, Anatoly:
> > On 26-Jun-19 12:39 PM, David Marchand wrote:
> > > 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;
> > > 
> > 
> > I prefer the original. It's more explicit and conveys the intention 
> > better. Did i break the tie? :)
> 
> I was going to send a v2 with David's suggestion.
> Now I'm confused.
> 
I always tend to prefer shorter versions, so +1 for v2 (does that make it a
v3? :-) )

/Bruce

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/linux: fix return after alarm registration failure

[Burakov, Anatoly]

On 26-Jun-19 1:36 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 01:55:53PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 26/06/2019 13:43, Burakov, Anatoly:
>>> On 26-Jun-19 12:39 PM, David Marchand wrote:
>>>> 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;
>>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer the original. It's more explicit and conveys the intention
>>> better. Did i break the tie? :)
>>
>> I was going to send a v2 with David's suggestion.
>> Now I'm confused.
>>
> I always tend to prefer shorter versions, so +1 for v2 (does that make it a
> v3? :-) )
> 
> /Bruce
> 

OK, but then the suggested comment needs to be fixed. It makes it seem 
like registering the handler is the "non fatal" part. Perhaps something 
like:

/* failed register is not a fatal error - callback can be registered 
later */

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/linux: fix return after alarm registration failure

[Thomas Monjalon]

26/06/2019 14:52, Burakov, Anatoly:
> On 26-Jun-19 1:36 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 01:55:53PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >> 26/06/2019 13:43, Burakov, Anatoly:
> >>> On 26-Jun-19 12:39 PM, David Marchand wrote:
> >>>> 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;
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I prefer the original. It's more explicit and conveys the intention
> >>> better. Did i break the tie? :)
> >>
> >> I was going to send a v2 with David's suggestion.
> >> Now I'm confused.
> >>
> > I always tend to prefer shorter versions, so +1 for v2 (does that make it a
> > v3? :-) )
> > 
> > /Bruce
> > 
> 
> OK, but then the suggested comment needs to be fixed. It makes it seem 
> like registering the handler is the "non fatal" part. Perhaps something 
> like:
> 
> /* failed register is not a fatal error - callback can be registered 
> later */

Of course! I had prepared this:
/* registration can fail, callback can be registered later */

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] eal/linux: fix return after alarm registration failure

[Thomas Monjalon]

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 not set anymore to be consistent with the behaviour.

Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
---
v2: do not use variable ret
---
 lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c
index 840ede780..0924c9205 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_alarm.c
@@ -137,9 +137,10 @@ rte_eal_alarm_set(uint64_t us, rte_eal_alarm_callback cb_fn, void *cb_arg)
 
 	rte_spinlock_lock(&alarm_list_lk);
 	if (!handler_registered) {
-		ret |= rte_intr_callback_register(&intr_handle,
-				eal_alarm_callback, NULL);
-		handler_registered = (ret == 0) ? 1 : 0;
+		/* registration can fail, callback can be registered later */
+		if (rte_intr_callback_register(&intr_handle,
+				eal_alarm_callback, NULL) == 0)
+			handler_registered = 1;
 	}
 
 	if (LIST_EMPTY(&alarm_list))
-- 
2.21.0

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] eal/linux: fix return after alarm registration failure

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:02:34 +0200
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 not set anymore to be consistent with the behaviour.
> 
> Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> ---
> v2: do not use variable ret

Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>

Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] eal/linux: fix return after alarm registration failure

[Thomas Monjalon]

27/06/2019 01:09, Stephen Hemminger:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:02:34 +0200
> 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 not set anymore to be consistent with the behaviour.
> > 
> > Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release")
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > ---
> > v2: do not use variable ret
> 
> Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>

Applied