Hi Andrew, > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Rybchenko [mailto:arybche...@solarflare.com] > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 4:49 PM > To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>; > olivier.m...@6wind.com > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mempool: check for invalid args on creation > > On 17.07.2018 13:37, Pablo de Lara wrote: > > Currently, a mempool can be created if the number of objects is zero > > or the size of these is zero. > > In these scenarios, rte_mempool_create should return NULL, as the > > mempool created is useless. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com> > > --- > > lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c > > b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c > > index 8c8b9f809..8c9573f1a 100644 > > --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c > > +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c > > @@ -916,6 +916,18 @@ rte_mempool_create_empty(const char *name, > > unsigned n, unsigned elt_size, > > > > mempool_list = RTE_TAILQ_CAST(rte_mempool_tailq.head, > > rte_mempool_list); > > > > + /* asked for zero items */ > > + if (n == 0) { > > + rte_errno = EINVAL; > > + return NULL; > > + } > > I agree which the check since attempt to populate it will most likely fail > with - > ENOSPC. > > > + > > + /* asked for zero-sized elements */ > > + if (elt_size == 0) { > > + rte_errno = EINVAL; > > + return NULL; > > + } > > + > > I'm not sure about this one. I could imagine the case when mempool elements > are used just as unique markers. So, I'm not sure that we should restrict such > usage.
I can drop this one and send a v2 on the first check. Is that OK? Thanks! Pablo
