From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aaron Conole Subject: Re: [RFC 00/23] Refactor eal_init to remove panic() calls Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 11:06:25 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1483111580-5397-1-git-send-email-aconole@redhat.com> <1909688.GKiQWP6byZ@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80B324A63 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 17:06:26 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <1909688.GKiQWP6byZ@xps13> (Thomas Monjalon's message of "Mon, 02 Jan 2017 15:22:40 +0100") List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Thomas Monjalon writes: > Hi Aaron, > > 2016-12-30 10:25, Aaron Conole: >> In many cases, it's enough to simply let the application know that the >> call to initialize DPDK has failed. A complete halt can then be >> decided by the application based on error returned (and the app could >> even attempt a possible re-attempt after some corrective action by the >> user or application). >> >> There is still some work left in this series. > > Thanks for starting the work. > I think it is candidate for 17.05 and can be promoted in the roadmap: > http://dpdk.org/dev/roadmap Okay. > Have you checked wether these changes are modifying the API? That'll be my last pass through. > Some doxygen comments may need to be updated when a new error code > is used. Agreed; I also want to ensure that there's a consistent set of error codes, and a consistent place to check for them. I'll probably prefer to put them in rte_errno. Thanks for your thoughts, Thomas!