From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] net/af_xdp: introduce AF XDP PMD
 driver
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:24:15 -0700
Message-ID: <20190321082415.1dc0a2b9@shemminger-XPS-13-9360>
References: <20190301080947.91086-1-xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
 <20190321091845.78495-1-xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
 <20190321091845.78495-2-xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>, Karlsson Magnus
 <magnus.karlsson@intel.com>, Topel Bjorn <bjorn.topel@intel.com>
To: Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pf1-f173.google.com (mail-pf1-f173.google.com
 [209.85.210.173]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76171B4F4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:24:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-pf1-f173.google.com with SMTP id c207so4511634pfc.7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20190321091845.78495-2-xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:18:41 +0800
Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> wrote:

> +
> +static inline int
> +reserve_fill_queue(struct xsk_umem_info *umem, int reserve_size)
> +{
> +	struct xsk_ring_prod *fq = &umem->fq;
> +	uint32_t idx;
> +	void *addr = NULL;
> +	int i, ret;
> +
> +	ret = xsk_ring_prod__reserve(fq, reserve_size, &idx);
> +	if (!ret) {
> +		RTE_LOG(ERR, AF_XDP, "Failed to reserve enough fq descs.\n");
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < reserve_size; i++) {
> +		__u64 *fq_addr;
> +		rte_ring_dequeue(umem->buf_ring, &addr);

You should check return value of dequeue, otherwise static checkers will
(rightly) complain that "everyone else checks return value of of rte_ring_dequeue()
why not here?"