From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] eal/linuxapp: fix return value check of
 mknod()
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:04:23 +0000
Message-ID: <213865d3-d1fa-3caa-92de-3970637b653d@intel.com>
References: <1479262339-63608-1-git-send-email-zhiyong.yang@intel.com>
 <1479264047-67966-1-git-send-email-wei.dai@intel.com>
 <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09093935007B@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
To: "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, "Dai, Wei" <wei.dai@intel.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Burakov, Anatoly"
 <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
 "david.marchand@6wind.com" <david.marchand@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B855598
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:04:26 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09093935007B@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://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: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Hi Wenzhuo,

On 11/16/2016 3:28 AM, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote:
> Hi Wei,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Wei Dai
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 10:41 AM
>> To: dev@dpdk.org; Burakov, Anatoly; david.marchand@6wind.com; Dai, Wei
>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] eal/linuxapp: fix return value check of mknod()
>>
>> In function pci_mknod_uio_dev() in lib/librte_eal/eal/eal_pci_uio.c, The return
>> value of mknod() is ret, not f got by fopen().
>> So the value of ret should be checked for mknod().
>>
>> Fixes: 67c536bdad93 ("pci: move uio mapping in a dedicated file")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Dai <wei.dai@intel.com>
>> ---
>> fix my local git setting and send same patch again to make merging easier
>>
>>  lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_uio.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_uio.c
>> b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_uio.c
>> index 1786b75..3e4ffb5 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_uio.c
>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_uio.c
>> @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ pci_mknod_uio_dev(const char *sysfs_uio_path,
>> unsigned uio_num)
>>  	snprintf(filename, sizeof(filename), "/dev/uio%u", uio_num);
>>  	dev = makedev(major, minor);
>>  	ret = mknod(filename, S_IFCHR | S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR, dev);
>> -	if (f == NULL) {
>> +	if (ret != 0) {
> I think checkpatch will suggest to just use if (ret)

Your are right, default checkpatch.pl complains about this usage (with
--strict option), but:

- According DPDK coding style this usage is preferred (although I
personally prefer kernel one..)

http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/coding_style.html#null-pointers

"
if (p == NULL) /* Good, compare pointer to NULL */

if (!p) /* Bad, using ! on pointer */
"

- This warning disabled in dpdk scripts/checkpatches.sh by "--ignore
COMPARISON_TO_NULL", so it shouldn't complain.