On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 05:38:06AM +0000, Wiles, Roger Keith wrote:
>
> On Sep 27, 2014, at 8:55 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> I decided to just use RTE_VERIFY() instead of creating a new macro for now,
> it seems this maybe an isolated case. I agree having RTE_VERIFY_WARN() would
> be nice, but as I was writing the macro I wanted to return from the function.
> For this routine ?return? would work as it returns (void), but for other
> routines a value may need to be returned.
>
Thats fine, you can do exactly what you need to do, just write the macro to
assert !!condition at the end, like this:
#define RTE_VERIFY_WARN(condition) do { \
int ret = !!condition; \
if (ret) \
printf(<message>); \
ret;\
}
Then, you can use the macro as a conditional itself anywhere you want:
int function(void *arguments)
{
if (RTE_VERIFY(arguments == NULL))
return 1
....
}
> Need a clean way to exit the routine without causing the macro to understand
> its return values. Just seem to become a bit messy at this point. Multiple
> macros for different return types or make the macros return a boolean value
> to be tested seemed to more complex then needed.
See above, thats how all the Linux WARN_ON macros work.
Neil
> >
> >> Keith Wiles, Principal Technologist with CTO office, Wind River mobile
> >> 972-213-5533
>
> Keith Wiles, Principal Technologist with CTO office, Wind River mobile
> 972-213-5533
>
>
