On 10/13/2020 4:39 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
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.
Agree it won't prevent misuse completely but may help, anyway I don't have a
strong opinion here, if you think that is not needed, that is OK.
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.
Can't those two also updated to return '-ENODEV' when 'port_id' is not valid?
