On 2014/10/29 13:26, Qiu, Michael wrote:
> ? 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.
>>
>
>
>
Agree.May be it is not need to return error?
--
Regards,
Haifeng
