From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] eal: add channel for multi-process communication Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:34:46 +0100 Message-ID: <3998210.cxRnO71GkY@xps> References: <1512067450-59203-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com> <1516853783-108023-2-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com> <6047a7cb-89a9-2969-3872-bb22b0d919d2@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Jianfeng Tan , dev@dpdk.org, bruce.richardson@intel.com, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com To: "Burakov, Anatoly" Return-path: Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70D0A49F for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:35:28 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <6047a7cb-89a9-2969-3872-bb22b0d919d2@intel.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" 25/01/2018 12:27, Burakov, Anatoly: > Also, as a general note, i would prefer for sendmsg API's to return 0 on > success and -1 on failure, as number of sent messages is not only > meaningless to the user (since there's no way to tell if the value > returned is the value we expected), but also makes the API unintuitive > and prone to usage errors when using common "if (sendmsg()) {// error}" > idiom. However, i'm fine with leaving it as is, if everyone else is. I have not reviewed it, but I feel you are right.