From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] ethdev: new API to free consumed
	buffers in Tx ring
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 18:11:25 +0100
Message-ID: <2146383.vtkpvASGrJ@xps13>
References: <20170123211340.22570-1-bmcfall@redhat.com>
 <1673691.cTdATcOVfP@xps13>
 <CAKLkqD6y243LN7CTjeq6b3DWTUKjwUzad+2jv-iuO5Rzo6G5Lw@mail.gmail.com>
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 <bmcfall@redhat.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EDA82C49
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  9 Mar 2017 18:11:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id n11so144476886wma.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 09:11:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKLkqD6y243LN7CTjeq6b3DWTUKjwUzad+2jv-iuO5Rzo6G5Lw@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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>

2017-03-09 10:49, Billy McFall:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> wrote:
> > 2017-03-07 09:29, Billy McFall:
> > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Thomas Monjalon <
> > thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Looking at the code. Do you think we need new MACROs or just set rte_errno
> in the existing? What would be the down side to setting rte_errno for all
> the existing calls?
> 
> Looks like RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(..) is being called ~135 times.
> Most calls are with retval set to either -ENODEV or -EINVAL. A few
> instances of 0 and -1, but not many.
> 
> Looks like RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(..) is being called ~100 times. Most
> calls are with retval set to -ENOTSUP. A few instances of 0, but not many.
> 
> I was thinking:
> /* Macros to check for valid port */
> #define RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, retval) do { \
> if (!rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port(port_id)) { \
> RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Invalid port_id=%d\n", port_id); \
> + if (retval < 0) \
> + rte_errno = -retval; \
> return retval; \
> } \
> } while (0)

Yes it seems acceptable.
This rework may be done separately.