Re: [PATCH 2/7] Move EAL common functions

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

2014-12-26 07:28, Ravi Kerur:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Neil Horman <nhorman-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:23:12AM -0800, Ravi Kerur wrote:
> > > Thanks Neil for reviews. Inline <rk>
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Neil Horman <nhorman-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 10:33:12AM -0500, Ravi Kerur wrote:
> > > > > eal_debug.c has no difference between Linux and BSD, move
> > > > > into common directory.
> > > > > Rename eal_debug.c to eal_common_debug.c
> > > > > Makefile changes to reflect file move and name change.
> > > > > Fix checkpatch warnings.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ravi Kerur <rkerur-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/* not implemented in this environment */
> > > > > +void rte_dump_registers(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +}
> > > > Clearly this function has no use, instead of keeping it around, can you
> > > > please
> > > > remove it until someone works up the gumption to make it do something.
> > > > We're
> > > > just wasting an extra call instruction here so someone doesn't have to
> > > > write a
> > > > prototype in the future.  I don't see the value.
> > > >
> > >
> > > <rk> This is existing code, I just removed "return" statement as per
> > > checkpatch. Should I make it "inline" and add a comment indicating to
> > > revisit whether to make it inline/no inline when the function is
> > > implemented?
> > >
> > I understand its existing code, I'm saying that, while you're moving it
> > around,
> > clean it up.  Don't make it inline, just remove it, since it does
> > nothing.  If
> > you feel its important to keep around, I suppose you can make it inline,
> > but I
> > don't really think its needed at all.
> >
> > Neil
> >
> >
> <rk> Sure will remove it.

Please remove it in a separate patch (before this one).

> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * Like rte_panic this terminates the application. However, no
> > > > traceback is
> > > > > + * provided and no core-dump is generated.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +void
> > > > > +rte_exit(int exit_code, const char *format, ...)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +     va_list ap;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     /* disable history */
> > > > > +     rte_log_set_history(0);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     if (exit_code != 0)
> > > > > +             RTE_LOG(CRIT, EAL, "Error - exiting with code: %d\n"
> > > > > +                             "  Cause: ", exit_code);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     va_start(ap, format);
> > > > > +     rte_vlog(RTE_LOG_CRIT, RTE_LOGTYPE_EAL, format, ap);
> > > > > +     va_end(ap);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#ifndef RTE_EAL_ALWAYS_PANIC_ON_ERROR
> > > > > +     exit(exit_code);
> > > > > +#else
> > > > > +     rte_dump_stack();
> > > > > +     rte_dump_registers();
> > > > > +     abort();
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > This doesn't match with the commentary above.  If rte_exit isn't meant
> > to
> > > > provide a traceback, it shouldn't do so.  If an application wants that
> > to
> > > > happen, then they need to use rte_panic.
> > > >
> > > > <rk> This is again existing code. I can change the comment which
> > matches
> > > the function, will it work?

Please do not change anything (except perhaps code style) when moving code.
If RTE_EAL_ALWAYS_PANIC_ON_ERROR must be removed (to discuss), it should be
done in another patchset.

Thanks
-- 
Thomas