Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] net/bonding: fix not checked return value

["Havlík Martin" <xhavli56@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>]

Dne 2021-07-08 14:43, Min Hu (Connor) napsal:
> 在 2021/6/22 17:25, Martin Havlik 写道:
>> Return value from bond_ethdev_8023ad_flow_set() is now checked
>> and appropriate message is logged on error.
>> 
>> Fixes: 112891cd27e5 ("net/bonding: add dedicated HW queues for LACP 
>> control")
>> Cc: tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Martin Havlik <xhavli56@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
>> Cc: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@cesnet.cz>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c | 8 +++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c 
>> b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>> index 4c43bf916..a6755661c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>> @@ -1819,8 +1819,14 @@ slave_configure(struct rte_eth_dev 
>> *bonded_eth_dev,
>>   
>> 					internals->mode4.dedicated_queues.flow[slave_eth_dev->data->port_id],
>>   					&flow_error);
>>   -		bond_ethdev_8023ad_flow_set(bonded_eth_dev,
>> +		errval = bond_ethdev_8023ad_flow_set(bonded_eth_dev,
>>   				slave_eth_dev->data->port_id);
>> +		if (errval != 0) {
>> +			RTE_BOND_LOG(ERR,
>> +				"bond_ethdev_8023ad_flow_set: port=%d, err (%d)",
>> +				slave_eth_dev->data->port_id, errval);
>> +			return errval;
>> +		}
>>   	}
>> 
> Firstly, I think your patch is OK,
> But I want to know what is your standard to decide which function
> should check return value or not(of course, they are none-void)?
> 
I encountered the problem with dedicated queues on mlx5, I looked into 
the source code and I saw the cause, so I fixed it. If I had seen any 
other issue, I would've fixed it too. That, for example, applies to the 
log message fix I included. My standard is to check all non-void return 
values.
> While, I noticed "bond_ethdev_lsc_event_callback" nearby was not
> checked, but you ignored it.
> 
Not ignored, just didn't properly review more code than what closely 
surrounded the problematic lines.
>>   	/* Start device */
>>