From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B382B1B1C8 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 16:41:19 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Jan 2018 07:41:12 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,330,1511856000"; d="scan'208";a="9562515" Received: from fmsmsx103.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.201]) by orsmga006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Jan 2018 07:41:12 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx117.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.21]) by FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.195]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 07:41:12 -0800 From: "Wiles, Keith" To: Stephen Hemminger CC: "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf:using sanity checks do not panic on null mbuf Thread-Index: AQHTiJbtIaZw0X2Yb0i9leasgQ3coaNqoyQA Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:41:12 +0000 Message-ID: <7C6B7ADB-6412-45F1-9BA0-84F1025FA473@intel.com> References: <20180108153423.57648-1-keith.wiles@intel.com> <20180108073941.791cba4f@xeon-e3> In-Reply-To: <20180108073941.791cba4f@xeon-e3> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.254.187.178] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <8EF328FBBEA9A4449570E078A4BB2525@intel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf:using sanity checks do not panic on null mbuf X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 15:41:20 -0000 > On Jan 8, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >=20 > On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 09:34:23 -0600 > Keith Wiles wrote: >=20 >> + if (!m || !f) { >> + fprintf(stderr, "MBUF and/or FILE pointer is NULL\n"); >> + return; >> + } >=20 > Calling with f of NULL is user error, let it still die in fprintf. I thought about that too, but this routine is a debug routine does it reall= y matter? Regards, Keith