From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B3FDA0555;
Fri, 3 Jun 2022 17:39:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA7240694;
Fri, 3 Jun 2022 17:39:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDEE54021E
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 17:39:25 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;
d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel;
t=1654270766; x=1685806766;
h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:
mime-version:in-reply-to;
bh=oTVMxXIJaTYJckIXitDGOl7lsNgGnvivou0lkzOnDjU=;
b=UxkgqV8p2nCi8U6hGy3InrY0CyplHUheNi/sJkS4bG+nWbE9oU3geZTv
50pZdK7Q+7fraQKKqjBhogRXQmpbCZX4JW05Cp8kCEmAdLHkWU1lhQ0v7
rh2biDd5d2X64zdu58k1Y2mK7Hz0LVNwcEGQX4GQ15YfAoXiBmpEZ/ZGS
QCMIMp1VUf1IR9YTnRPll1ZRmh6LxwHWmuj0GyOergv24uXRutrgSGj+p
LcF6fJ3v3f++zugq8vktjN3ss6faaZB4AnazmjOl1rbBDvs4Ymk0n0V96
u51Q+mZo71/UG3lqHMHXFdBfE5iMhHjoda4ZApEQxPk1rAMjkcCcfi/Wi A==;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10367"; a="273841368"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,274,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="273841368"
Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38])
by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
03 Jun 2022 08:39:23 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,274,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="708071982"
Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.55.133.25])
by orsmga004-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA;
03 Jun 2022 08:39:21 -0700
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:39:16 +0100
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: Kevin Laatz <kevin.laatz@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
Morten =?iso-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] eal: add bus cleanup to eal cleanup
Message-ID: <YporJA+IFMC8yqYP@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <20220419161438.1837860-1-kevin.laatz@intel.com>
<20220603143601.230519-1-kevin.laatz@intel.com>
<20220603081154.12568fa1@hermes.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220603081154.12568fa1@hermes.local>
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 08:11:54AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 15:36:01 +0100
> Kevin Laatz <kevin.laatz@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > +/* Clean up all devices of all buses */
> > +int
> > +eal_bus_cleanup(void)
> > +{
> > + int ret = 0;
> > + struct rte_bus *bus;
> > +
> > + TAILQ_FOREACH(bus, &rte_bus_list, next) {
> > + if (bus->cleanup == NULL)
> > + continue;
> > + if (bus->cleanup() != 0)
> > + ret = -1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
>
> This is an internal function, and all users of it
> look like they don't use the return value.
>
> Why not make the function void eal_bus_cleanup()
> and simplify back up the call chain?
Is there really that much difference in doing so? My own slight preference
would be to have the error codes available for future use in case we want
them, so long as the overhead of them is not great (which it should not
be). However, if others all feel that having these functions return void is
best, I'm happy enough with that too.