? 10/29/2014 11:46 AM, Matthew Hall ??:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 03:27:58AM +0000, Qiu, Michael wrote:
>> I just saw one return path with value '0', and no any other place
>> return a negative value, so it is better to be designed as one
>> non-return function,
>>
>> +void
>> +rte_eal_hugepage_free(void)
>> +{
>> + struct hugepage_file *hugepg_tbl = g_hugepage_table.hugepg_tbl;
>> + unsigned i;
>> + unsigned nr_hugefiles = g_hugepage_table.nr_hugefiles;
>> +
>> + RTE_LOG(INFO, EAL, "unlink %u hugepage files\n", nr_hugefiles);
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < nr_hugefiles; i++) {
>> + unlink(hugepg_tbl[i].filepath);
>> + hugepg_tbl[i].orig_va = NULL;
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Michael
> Actually, I don't think that's quite right.
>
> http://linux.die.net/man/2/unlink
>
> "On success, zero is returned. On error, -1 is returned, and errno is set
> appropriately." So it should be returning an error, and logging a message for
> a file it cannot unlink or people will be surprised with weird failures.
Really need one message for unlink failed, but I'm afraid that if it
make sense for return an error code when application exit.
Thanks
Michael
> It also had some minor typos / English in the comments but we can fix that
> too.
>
> Matthew.
>
