From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF611A0C41; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 08:18:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA1340DDA; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 08:18:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CB954067B; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 08:18:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23615C00F8; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 02:18:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 02 Dec 2021 02:18:55 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= t7RuLA6JAoSwXoIajo/p79TUi1fDL9RIG++4luG+bzk=; b=Jm9UoWEBONlGuILX XVu4aSgUgAvYSRZzDcjofyC1ZuHEyDaT4HDAoOHQfikC1/rN5JU5ukem3EIAftou a/GA5Rl5nHiIoHCBhRyhOSZ4R2ghNpsAJNENTwluwU/6a+ZWd2F3H5YoX/Z+LzAk r0aGud1weOYJEjidUTklpTJZAdmxZeHcjrOL7ruZdNWZq292uHvx+JpabW4bH9S5 T7WsSgO1EU30SEaycWp6veqdLoO/B9K4MMeEXFrl96WPZgq3q8BzkyQ4IvehxG5W 7yRY6m324MUSJ0rxSNthG0mjR4v7GYsQeD1p4NiBh8RFiPL8zL5PZpc+2WLSKUh6 hYnzUg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=t7RuLA6JAoSwXoIajo/p79TUi1fDL9RIG++4luG+b zk=; b=fP9ghwPohuHS2UJkUA9V6V4qws9vYANiGvPQIC6G96jo0XZJA7oYWvRLM alFfXnIHUIOaGl1KbxvziloIfhV79YvNkh9ZiU87+EpKC7qUcT+gSi41hQkUQDOb nviccGuACMy1UYYvtHFmwhK6VJSq/mqwHhq5TBf/9ssusM9l2021fmfjlprZOJLa E6kwbXtel9GeDzbbtDyxh+zpON5jNuzCv0Ba5txQFXMOf+D+4MneEoE/s8lCQq1c dN24j7MHCqxlifg7cCeQK5L6XIi0TUp7VGc00JO6ieGipm3DsVvr+k1O9bN28El6 gPkPUJA+M9dQsjWb+D1wuTK1pSxQQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrieeggddutdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 02:18:54 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Tyler Retzlaff Cc: Bruce Richardson , techboard@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org, Andrew Rybchenko , David Marchand , Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] gpudev: return EINVAL if invalid input pointer for free and unregister Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 08:18:52 +0100 Message-ID: <3625450.hdfAi7Kttb@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20211201213749.GA5097@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> References: <20211118192802.23955-1-eagostini@nvidia.com> <20211201213749.GA5097@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 01/12/2021 22:37, Tyler Retzlaff: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 06:04:56PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > if (ret < 0 && rte_errno == EAGAIN) > > i only urge that this be explicit as opposed to a range i.e. ret == -1 > preferred over ret < 0 I don't understand why you think it is important to limit return value to -1. Why "if (ret == -1)" is better than "if (ret < 0)" ?