17/10/2020 01:43, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 10/16/2020 10:58 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > On 10/16/2020 1:05 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >> On 10/13/2020 4:32 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.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> And there are a few instances returning '-1', are they left intentionally?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> > >
> >
> > Applied to dpdk-next-net/main, thanks.
> >
>
> There are some bitratestats unit tests, that checks APIs with invalid
> port_id.
> Unit tests checks return values as '-EINVAL', they also should be updated as
> '-ENODEV' with this patch.
>
> Adding following update to this patch in next-net
>
> diff --git a/app/test/test_bitratestats.c b/app/test/test_bitratestats.c
> index 39d7f734d4..fb4203c57b 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_bitratestats.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_bitratestats.c
> @@ -99,8 +99,8 @@ test_stats_bitrate_calc_invalid_portid_1(void)
> int ret = 0;
>
> ret = rte_stats_bitrate_calc(bitrate_data, 33);
> - TEST_ASSERT(ret == -EINVAL, "Test Failed: Expected -%d for higher "
> - "portid rte_stats_bitrate_calc ret:%d", EINVAL,
> ret);
> + TEST_ASSERT(ret == -ENODEV, "Test Failed: Expected -%d for higher "
> + "portid rte_stats_bitrate_calc ret:%d", ENODEV,
> ret);
>
> return TEST_SUCCESS;
> }
> @@ -112,8 +112,8 @@ test_stats_bitrate_calc_invalid_portid_2(void)
> int ret = 0;
>
> ret = rte_stats_bitrate_calc(bitrate_data, -1);
> - TEST_ASSERT(ret == -EINVAL, "Test Failed: Expected -%d for invalid "
> - "portid rte_stats_bitrate_calc ret:%d", EINVAL,
> ret);
> + TEST_ASSERT(ret == -ENODEV, "Test Failed: Expected -%d for invalid "
> + "portid rte_stats_bitrate_calc ret:%d", ENODEV,
> ret);
>
> return TEST_SUCCESS;
> }
> @@ -125,9 +125,9 @@ test_stats_bitrate_calc_non_existing_portid(void)
> int ret = 0;
>
> ret = rte_stats_bitrate_calc(bitrate_data, 31);
> - TEST_ASSERT(ret == -EINVAL, "Test Failed: Expected -%d for "
> + TEST_ASSERT(ret == -ENODEV, "Test Failed: Expected -%d for "
> "non-existing portid rte_stats_bitrate_calc ret:%d",
> - EINVAL, ret);
> + ENODEV, ret);
>
> return TEST_SUCCESS;
> }
Thank you Ferruh for the extra checks.
