Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/2] eal: error number enhancement for thread TLS API

[Tal Shnaiderman <talshn@nvidia.com>]

> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] eal: error number enhancement for thread TLS
> API
> 
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Tal Shnaiderman wrote:
> > add error number reporting to rte_errno in all functions in the
> > rte_thread_tls_* API.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tal Shnaiderman <talshn@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >  lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h | 14 +++++++++++---
> >  lib/librte_eal/unix/rte_thread.c    |  6 ++++++
> >  lib/librte_eal/windows/rte_thread.c |  6 ++++++
> >  3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> > b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> 
> After we introduce a translation function to map from Windows error codes
> to errno style codes (as part of EAL threads API), should we change this to
> directly return the error code from the functions?
> Or do we follow the pattern of setting rte_errno?

Sorry for the late reply,

I'd stick to errors in rte_errno, note that in cases like rte_thread_value_get the only way to get the errors is with rte_errno since it's returning the value itself.

BTW will you also add translation function for the UNIX errors to get identical errors?