From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] ethdev: new API to free consumed buffers in Tx ring Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:03:57 +0100 Message-ID: <1673691.cTdATcOVfP@xps13> References: <20170123211340.22570-1-bmcfall@redhat.com> <2417966.3G0haXHz4n@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: wenzhuo.lu@intel.com, olivier.matz@6wind.com, dev@dpdk.org, adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com To: Billy McFall Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f179.google.com (mail-wr0-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F371BBE for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:03:59 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wr0-f179.google.com with SMTP id g10so4643331wrg.2 for ; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:03:59 -0800 (PST) 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" 2017-03-07 09:29, Billy McFall: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Thomas Monjalon > wrote: > > I think you could use rte_errno (while keeping negative return codes). > > > > I can do that if you want, but if I understand your comment, it will make > the implementation of the function not as clean. I cannot use the existing > RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(..) and RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(..) MACROs > because they are handling the return on error. Or am I missing something? Yes. Maybe we need new macros for basic error management with rte_errno.