On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 12:01:10PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 04:43:10PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 11:02:27AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 03:36:45PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 2014-09-28 08:27, Neil Horman: > > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 05:28:44AM +0000, Wiles, Roger Keith wrote: > > > > > > Check the FILE *f and rte_mempool *mp pointers for NULL and > > > > > > return plus print out a message if RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL_DEBUG is > > > > > > enabled. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Keith Wiles <keith.wiles at windriver.com> > > > > > > > > > > I'm fine with this, as I think passing in a NULL mempool is clearly a > > > > > bug here, > > > > > thats worth panicing over, though I wouldnt mind if we did a > > > > > RTE_VERIFY_WARN > > > > > macro here instead using what I suggested in my other note > > > > > > > > Passing a NULL mempool to rte_mempool_dump() is a bug in the > > > > application. > > > > If you look elsewhere in the DPDK code, you'll see that it's not common > > > > to do > > > > such check on input parameters. > > > > A similar discussion already happened few months ago: > > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-June/003900.html > > > > > > > Not sure what your point is here Thomas. I think we're all in agreement > > > that > > > NULL is a bad value to pass in here. Are you asserting that we shouldn't > > > bother > > > with a NULL check at all and just accept the crash as it is? > > > > > > > In the general case: > > * Code in the datapath should not have things like NULL checks > > * However, datapath code should generally have a debug option which turns > > these checks on to help debugging if needed. > > * Code not in the datapath probably should have these checks. > > > Ok, I can understand that, but I would hope that rte_mempool_dump isn't in the > datapath, its rather by definition a debug function, isn't it? > Neil
Yes, agreed. [So it probably should have the NULL check]. /Bruce
