* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] test: fix missing NULL pointer checks
2014-12-18 9:41 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] test: fix missing NULL pointer checks Daniel Mrzyglod
@ 2014-12-18 21:05 ` Thomas Monjalon
2015-01-26 21:26 ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-12-18 21:12 ` Neil Horman
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Monjalon @ 2014-12-18 21:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Mrzyglod; +Cc: dev
2014-12-18 09:41, Daniel Mrzyglod:
> In test_sched, we are missing NULL pointer checks after calls to create the
> mempool and to allocate an mbuf. Add in these checks using VERIFY macros.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Mrzyglod <danielx.t.mrzyglod@intel.com>
> ---
> app/test/test_sched.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/app/test/test_sched.c b/app/test/test_sched.c
> index c957d80..9b6e037 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_sched.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_sched.c
> @@ -166,6 +166,7 @@ test_sched(void)
> int err;
>
> mp = create_mempool();
> + VERIFY(mp != NULL,"Error create mempool\n");
A space is missing after the comma.
Is "Error creating mempool" more correct?
> port_param.socket = 0;
> port_param.rate = (uint64_t) 10000 * 1000 * 1000 / 8;
> @@ -184,6 +185,7 @@ test_sched(void)
>
> for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
> in_mbufs[i] = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mp);
> + VERIFY(in_mbufs[i] != NULL, "Bad packet allocation");
An \n is missing.
"Packet allocation failed" seems more appropriate.
--
Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] test: fix missing NULL pointer checks
2014-12-18 9:41 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] test: fix missing NULL pointer checks Daniel Mrzyglod
2014-12-18 21:05 ` Thomas Monjalon
@ 2014-12-18 21:12 ` Neil Horman
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Neil Horman @ 2014-12-18 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Mrzyglod; +Cc: dev
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 09:41:47AM +0000, Daniel Mrzyglod wrote:
> In test_sched, we are missing NULL pointer checks after calls to create the
> mempool and to allocate an mbuf. Add in these checks using VERIFY macros.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Mrzyglod <danielx.t.mrzyglod@intel.com>
> ---
> app/test/test_sched.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/app/test/test_sched.c b/app/test/test_sched.c
> index c957d80..9b6e037 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_sched.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_sched.c
> @@ -166,6 +166,7 @@ test_sched(void)
> int err;
>
> mp = create_mempool();
> + VERIFY(mp != NULL,"Error create mempool\n");
>
> port_param.socket = 0;
> port_param.rate = (uint64_t) 10000 * 1000 * 1000 / 8;
> @@ -184,6 +185,7 @@ test_sched(void)
>
> for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
> in_mbufs[i] = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mp);
> + VERIFY(in_mbufs[i] != NULL, "Bad packet allocation");
> prepare_pkt(in_mbufs[i]);
> }
>
> --
> 2.1.0
>
>
Looking at the VERIFY macro, its defined as:
#define VERIFY(exp,fmt,args...) \
if (!(exp)) { \
printf(fmt, ##args);
return -1; \
}
Thats really bad practice, as it embodies a return into the VERIFY macro,
creating hidden function exit points that the programmer can't clean up within.
Every use of the VERIFY macro in test_sched causes the program to return without
freeing any of the memory allocated in the function (not that the function is
any good at cleaning up after itself anyway), but I would recommend that you
modify the macro as such:
#define VERIFY(exp, fmt, args...) \
if (!(exp)) { \
printf(fmt, ##args); \
0;\
} else \
1;\
}
That way you can use the macro like this:
if (VERIFY(in_mbufs[i] != NULL, "Bad packet allocation") {
//Insert cleanup code here
}
Neil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread