From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] ethdev: adjust APIs removal error
	report
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:28:33 +0100
Message-ID: <1624152.X7h7I9Omfq@xps>
References: <1516220357-13013-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com>
 <3230393.d19WHEAjBn@xps>
 <AM6PR0502MB37976EF53B6CA50E0703CEB1D2EE0@AM6PR0502MB3797.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, "Ananyev,
 Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
 Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>,
 Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
 Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>,
 Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>, Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>,
 Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>
To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710182904
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:29:09 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR0502MB37976EF53B6CA50E0703CEB1D2EE0@AM6PR0502MB3797.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

20/01/2018 20:04, Matan Azrad:
> Konstantin wrote in another thread:
> >+	RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, 0);
> >+
> >+	dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
> >+
> >+	RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->is_removed, 0);
> 
> > I'd says these 2 checks have to be swapped.
> 
> Konstantin, Please explain why.

I think he was talking about these 2 tests:

+	RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->is_removed, 0);
+	if (dev->state == RTE_ETH_DEV_REMOVED)
+		return 1;