From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio?= Laranjeiro Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix error number handling Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:05:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20180620070513.4n2cgonoudruupyh@laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com> References: <20180604173731.29125-1-yskoh@mellanox.com> <20180605065246.mw7xnk24cfwxy4an@laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com> <84C956B6-28EE-4F82-97AE-5E9C371DD115@mellanox.com> <20180606065501.hhrfrti47nr5xigo@laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com> <20180606183926.GA1446@yongseok-MBP.local> <20180607073944.zewdysx6ddrdygoz@laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com> <42BB3FF2-80B8-4250-928C-32D509E32DAA@mellanox.com> <20180619114852.lzxwjj7ud5owcyuu@laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com> <939801BC-1FFD-4770-A491-81E2F3D847C2@mellanox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Adrien Mazarguil , "dev@dpdk.org" , Shahaf Shuler , dpdk stable , "Xueming(Steven) Li" To: Yongseok Koh Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f193.google.com (mail-wr0-f193.google.com [209.85.128.193]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 371111B448 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:05:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f193.google.com with SMTP id e18-v6so2056575wrs.5 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 00:05:02 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <939801BC-1FFD-4770-A491-81E2F3D847C2@mellanox.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:00:25PM +0000, Yongseok Koh wrote: >[...] > >>> I did not understood it was only a concern about the success of the > >>> function, even it is better to avoid as most as possible a useless > >>> store, in this specific case, as errno (rte_errno) has a garbage value, > >>> I fully agree with you. > >> > >> Nelio, > >> > >> Do you still want me to make any change for this patch? > >> Let me know if any. > > > > With your modification the function documentation is no more accurate as > > rte_errno is always set. > > I still don't agree with that but will send out v2. It's not a big deal. What I meant is, you could have only changed the function documentation. @return 0 on success with rte_errno always set, negative errno otherwise. letting the function documentation saying rte_errno is only modified in case of error whereas it is not is a bug or in the documentation or in the code, but as a function must respect its documentation, it would have raised a bug in the code itself. Regards, -- Nélio Laranjeiro 6WIND