On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 01:14:05AM +0000, Wiles, Roger Keith wrote:
>
> On Sep 27, 2014, at 7:37 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 06:35:01PM +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>
> >> ---
> >> lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c | 6 ++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c
> >> b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c
> >> index 332f469..efa6a6c 100644
> >> --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c
> >> +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c
> >> @@ -765,6 +765,12 @@ rte_mempool_dump(FILE *f, const struct rte_mempool
> >> *mp)
> >> unsigned common_count;
> >> unsigned cache_count;
> >>
> >> + if ( (f == NULL) || (mp == NULL) ) {
> >> +#ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL_DEBUG
> >> + fprintf(stderr, "*** Called rte_mempool_dump(%p, %p) with NULL
> >> argument\n", f, mp);
> >> +#endif /* RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL_DEBUG */
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> >> fprintf(f, "mempool <%s>@%p\n", mp->name, mp);
> >> fprintf(f, " flags=%x\n", mp->flags);
> >> fprintf(f, " ring=<%s>@%p\n", mp->ring->name, mp->ring);
> >> --
> >> 2.1.0
> >>
> >>
> > Maybe use RTE_VERIFY instead?
> > Neil
> >
> I did not think it needs to panic as it is just a debug function and
> returning would be fine by me, comments?
> Do we have a similar RTE_VERIFY like function that does not panic?
>
If we don't, it would seem useful to make one. It beats having to do specific
condition checking/error reporting. RTE_VERIFY_WARN or some such.
Neil
> Keith Wiles, Principal Technologist with CTO office, Wind River mobile
> 972-213-5533
>
>
