On 10/23/2018 11:43 AM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 October 2018 03:21 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 10/23/2018 8:09 AM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
>>> Besides the comment I sent before about 'Fixes' before sign-off, a
>>> single trivial comment inline ...
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 23 October 2018 07:20 AM, Rosen Xu wrote:
>>>> This patch fixes rte_eal_hotplug_add without checking return value issue
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rosen Xu <rosen...@intel.com>
>>>> Fixes: ef1e8ede3da5 ("raw/ifpga: add Intel FPGA bus rawdev driver")
>>>> Cc: rosen...@intel.com
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/raw/ifpga_rawdev/ifpga_rawdev.c | 5 +++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/raw/ifpga_rawdev/ifpga_rawdev.c
>>>> b/drivers/raw/ifpga_rawdev/ifpga_rawdev.c
>>>> index 3fed057..32e318f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/raw/ifpga_rawdev/ifpga_rawdev.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/raw/ifpga_rawdev/ifpga_rawdev.c
>>>> @@ -542,6 +542,7 @@
>>>> int port;
>>>> char *name = NULL;
>>>> char dev_name[RTE_RAWDEV_NAME_MAX_LEN];
>>>> + int ret = -1;
>>>>
>>>> devargs = dev->device.devargs;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -583,7 +584,7 @@
>>>> snprintf(dev_name, RTE_RAWDEV_NAME_MAX_LEN, "%d|%s",
>>>> port, name);
>>>>
>>>> - rte_eal_hotplug_add(RTE_STR(IFPGA_BUS_NAME),
>>>> + ret = rte_eal_hotplug_add(RTE_STR(IFPGA_BUS_NAME),
>>>> dev_name, devargs->args);
>>>
>>> Ideally, the function argument spreading on next line should start
>>> underneath the previous arguments - something like:
>>>
>>> ret = rte_eal_hotplug_add(RTE_STR(IFPGA_BUS_NAME),
>>> dev_name, devargs->args);
>>
>> Hi Shreyansh,
>>
>> According dpdk coding convention [1], indentation done by hard tab, code
>> seems
>> inline with coding convention, only perhaps can be done single tab instead of
>> double.
>>
>> And to remind again, I am not for syntax discussions but just defining one
>> and
>> consistently follow it .
>>
>> [1]
>> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/coding_style.html#c-indentation
>> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/coding_style.html#prototypes
>>
>
> Oh!. Thanks - something I had missed reading.
>
> I don't want to hijack the conversation, but for my clarity, I think
>
> >>> snprintf(dev_name, RTE_RAWDEV_NAME_MAX_LEN, "%d|%s",
> >>> port, name);
>
> won't be correct. Right?
You are right, it doesn't look correct.
> I am not suggesting that it should be changed now that it is already
> part of code.
>
>>>
>>> But, in this file this is not being done at multiple places (for
>>> example, the snprintf in this code snippet). So, either you can ignore
>>> this comment, or fix it for just this change.
>>>
>>>> end:
>>>> if (kvlist)
>>>> @@ -591,7 +592,7 @@
>>>> if (name)
>>>> free(name);
>>>>
>>>> - return 0;
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static int
>>>>
>>>
>>> Otherwise, the patch is simple enough.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com>
>>>
>>
>
