On 09/28, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > > >On 09/28/2018 05:17 PM, Ye Xiaolong wrote: >> On 09/28, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 09/28/2018 04:33 PM, Ye Xiaolong wrote: >> > > On 09/28, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >> > > > > + ret = rte_eal_init(argc, argv); >> > > > > + if (ret < 0) >> > > > > + rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "eal init failed\n"); >> > > > > + argc -= ret; >> > > > > + argv += ret; >> > > > > + >> > > > > + data_init(); >> > > > >> > > > You need to check return from data_init(). >> > > > If this is fine for you, I can change to below code when applying: >> > > > >> > > > ret = data_init(); >> > > > if (ret < 0) >> > > > rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "data init failed\n"); >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > I'm fine with this change. >> > >> > Or even better, get rid of data_init and >> > call rte_vdpa_get_device_num(); in main directly. >> >> Sounds better, as we've removed unnecessary static variable initialization in >> data_init, it does nothing but call rte_vdpa_get_device_num, we can remove >> this >> wrap. Would you do this change when applying or you perfer I send a new >> revision? > >Please send a new revision, and in the commit message, >fix first letter of my family name with an upper case, >and move my R-b below your sign-off.
Got it. Thanks, Xiaolong > >Thanks! >Maxime > >> Thanks, >> Xiaolong >> >> >> > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Xiaolong >> > >
