From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] ethdev: add devop to check removal
	status
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:51:10 +0100
Message-ID: <20459625.d9rBa0iXI8@xps>
References: <1513175370-16583-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com>
 <20171219092017.532d596f@xeon-e3>
 <HE1PR0502MB3659733F408EEC8235B7EF92D20F0@HE1PR0502MB3659.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
 Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
 Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>, dev@dpdk.org
To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A84741B255
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:51:14 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0502MB3659733F408EEC8235B7EF92D20F0@HE1PR0502MB3659.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>

19/12/2017 18:24, Matan Azrad:
> HI
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 7:20 PM
> > To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> > Cc: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> > <thomas@monjalon.net>; Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>;
> > dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/6] ethdev: add devop to check removal
> > status
> > 
> > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:10:10 +0000
> > Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >  int
> > > +rte_eth_dev_is_removed(uint16_t port_id) {
> > > +	struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
> > > +	int ret;
> > > +
> > > +	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);
> > > +
> > > +	if (dev->state == RTE_ETH_DEV_REMOVED)
> > > +		return 1;
> > > +
> > > +	ret = dev->dev_ops->is_removed(dev);
> > > +	if (ret != 0)
> > > +		dev->state = RTE_ETH_DEV_REMOVED;
> > > +
> > > +	return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > 
> > This looks good.
> > May be a candidate to use bool instead of int for return value?
> 
> Yes, I thought about it but didn't see any precedence for bool usage in ethdev APIs.
> Guys, what do you think?

I think this function can return error, isn't it?
(look at macros *_OR_ERR_RET used in the function)