On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:33:44AM +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > 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.
I think an int is fine. Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>
