On 10/13/20 6:32 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 10/13/2020 3:53 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>> Use ENODEV as the error code if specified port ID is invalid.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>
>> ---
>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++----------------
>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>> b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>> index 5b7979a3b8..1f862f918a 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>> @@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_get_name_by_port(uint16_t port_id,
>> char *name)
>> {
>> char *tmp;
>> - RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -EINVAL);
>> + RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
>
> Thanks Andrew, +1 to this error unification.
>
> This will be API change without deprecation notice, cc'ed techboard for it.
Yes, thanks.
>
> If this should (almost) always return '-ENODEV', does it make sense to
> make another wrapper macro for it, to prevent later other error types
> used again.
Unlikely, since most likely the line will be simply copied.
RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET will remain in any case, so
it will be possible to misuse it anyway.
>
> And there are a few instances returning '-1', are they left intentionally?
Yes. Inside ethdev it is either socket_id or fd in these cases.
