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 >> >