From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ethdev: pre-emptively document rte_eth_dev_reset error code Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:11:13 +0200 Message-ID: <3757028.oCNDDIN3Jm@xps> References: <20171019134827.22740-1-luca.boccassi@gmail.com> <20171019134827.22740-2-luca.boccassi@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, wenzhuo.lu@intel.com, wei.dai@intel.com To: Remy Horton , luca.boccassi@gmail.com, Luca Boccassi Return-path: Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032FC1B6D0 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:11:14 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 19/10/2017 16:53, Remy Horton: > > On 19/10/2017 14:48, luca.boccassi@gmail.com wrote: > > Document it immediately even if it's not yet supported, so that users > > and developers can already take into account about this use case, and > > thus avoid an API-incompatible change later on. > > I'm not sure about documenting unimplemented features, as API docs ought > to describe what the code currently does. Then again reason seems OK and > I don't think there's hard guidelines on this.. An API does not need to be implemented to describe its behaviour. We just have to agree about which behaviour we want to expect. It seems this error code is reasonable. But I am not sure you need to give the details about the cause of the error. The most important is to advise app writer to retry resetting later when the device is ready. Isn't it?