On 02/10, Li, Xiaoyun wrote:
>Hi
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ye, Xiaolong
>> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 11:37
>> To: Li, Xiaoyun <xiaoyun...@intel.com>
>> Cc: Kovacevic, Marko <marko.kovace...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>> sta...@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] examples/tep_term: fix return value check
>>
>> On 02/10, Xiaoyun Li wrote:
>> >Added return value check for 'rte_eth_dev_info_get()'.
>> >
>> >Coverity issue: 349922
>> >Fixes: 2bb43bd4350a ("examples/tep_term: add TSO offload configuration")
>> >Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>> >
>> >Signed-off-by: Xiaoyun Li <xiaoyun...@intel.com>
>> >---
>> > examples/tep_termination/vxlan_setup.c | 4 +++-
>> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/examples/tep_termination/vxlan_setup.c
>> b/examples/tep_termination/vxlan_setup.c
>> >index eca119a72..bd469f5f4 100644
>> >--- a/examples/tep_termination/vxlan_setup.c
>> >+++ b/examples/tep_termination/vxlan_setup.c
>> >@@ -195,7 +195,9 @@ vxlan_port_init(uint16_t port, struct rte_mempool
>> *mbuf_pool)
>> >
>> > if (tso_segsz != 0) {
>> > struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info;
>> >- rte_eth_dev_info_get(port, &dev_info);
>> >+ retval = rte_eth_dev_info_get(port, &dev_info);
>> >+ if (retval != 0)
>> >+ return -retval;
>>
>> why return -retval not retval?
>
>The description of return value of rte_eth_dev_info_get() is like the
>following:
>@return
> * - (0) if successful.
> * - (-ENOTSUP) if support for dev_infos_get() does not exist for the device.
> * - (-ENODEV) if *port_id* invalid.
>So -retval is the real err code.
>But the check of this function (vxlan_port_init) is
>(overlay_options.port_configure(portid, mbuf_pool) != 0)
>So return -retval or retval are both OK.
Better to align with other return val checks in this function to return retval.
Thanks,
Xiaolong
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Xiaolong
>>
>> > if ((dev_info.tx_offload_capa & DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_TSO)
>> == 0)
>> > RTE_LOG(WARNING, PORT,
>> > "hardware TSO offload is not supported\n");
>> >--
>> >2.17.1
>> >
