From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] eal: add synchronous multi-process
	communication
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:25:58 +0000
Message-ID: <a7f9b0f9-128a-c01c-d745-3a0085deda75@intel.com>
References: <1512067450-59203-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
 <1516853783-108023-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
 <1516853783-108023-3-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
 <93ea032e-e2da-f087-567a-2397fad7ff02@intel.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258862836A2@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 "thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 "Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
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 37D71A49F
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:26:01 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258862836A2@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
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>

On 25-Jan-18 12:19 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Burakov, Anatoly
>> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 12:00 PM
>> To: Tan, Jianfeng <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; thomas@monjalon.net
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] eal: add synchronous multi-process communication
>>
>> On the overall patch,
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
>>
>> For request(), returning number of replies received actually makes
>> sense, because now we get use the value to read our replies, if we were
>> a primary process sending messages to secondary processes.
> 
> Yes, I also think it is good to return number of sends.
> Then caller can compare number of sended requests with number of
> received replies and decide should it be considered a failure or no.
> 

Well, OK, that might make sense. However, i think it would've be of more 
value to make the API consistent (0/-1 on success/failure) and put 
number of sent messages into the reply, like number of received. I.e. 
something like

struct reply {
    int nb_sent;
    int nb_received;
};

We do it for the latter already, so why not the former?

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly