On 09/10/2018 11:24 AM, David Marchand wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Andrew Rybchenko
<arybche...@solarflare.com> wrote:
+/**
+ * Sanity checks on a mbuf.
+ *
+ * Almost like rte_mbuf_sanity_check(), but this function gives the reason
+ * if corruption is detected rather than panic.
+ *
+ * @param m
+ * The mbuf to be checked.
+ * @param is_header
+ * True if the mbuf is a packet header, false if it is a sub-segment
+ * of a packet (in this case, some fields like nb_segs are not checked)
+ * @param reason
+ * A reference to a string pointer where to store the reason why a mbuf
is
+ * considered invalid.
+ * @return
+ * - 0 if no issue has been found, reason is left untouched.
+ * - -1 if a problem is detected, reason then points to a string
describing
+ * the reason why the mbuf is deemed invalid.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+int rte_mbuf_check(const struct rte_mbuf *m, int is_header,
+ const char **reason);
+
May be it would be better to return reason as return value and if it is NULL
everything is OK?
This was what I had done with my first attempt.
But given the name "rte_mbuf_check", having a int (used as a bool)
returned makes sense to me.
Yes, good point.
So no strong opinion here.
Me too.
