On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 06:04:56PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 09:24:42AM -0800, Tyler Retzlaff wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:56:36AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 19/11/2021 10:34, Ferruh Yigit:
> > > > >> + if (ptr == NULL) {
> > > > >> + rte_errno = EINVAL;
> > > > >> + return -rte_errno;
> > > > >> + }
> > > > >
> > > > > in general dpdk has real problems with how it indicates that an error
> > > > > occurred and what error occurred consistently.
> > > > >
> > > > > some api's return 0 on success
> > > > > and maybe return -errno if ! 0
> > > > > and maybe return errno if ! 0
> > >
> > > Which function returns a positive errno?
> >
> > i may have mispoke about this variant, it may be something i recall
> > seeing in a posted patch that was resolved before integration.
> >
> > >
> > > > > and maybe set rte_errno if ! 0
> > > > >
> > > > > some api's return -1 on failure
> > > > > and set rte_errno if -1
> > > > >
> > > > > some api's return < 0 on failure
> > > > > and maybe set rte_errno
> > > > > and maybe return -errno
> > > > > and maybe set rte_errno and return -rte_errno
> > > >
> > > > This is a generic comment, cc'ed a few more folks to make the comment
> > > > more
> > > > visible.
> > > >
> > > > > this isn't isiolated to only this change but since additions and
> > > > > context
> > > > > in this patch highlight it maybe it's a good time to bring it up.
> > > > >
> > > > > it's frustrating to have to carefully read the implementation every
> > > > > time
> > > > > you want to make a function call to make sure you're handling the
> > > > > flavor
> > > > > of error reporting for a particular function.
> > > > >
> > > > > if this is new code could we please clearly identify the current best
> > > > > practice and follow it as a standard going forward for all new public
> > > > > apis.
> > >
> > > I think this patch is following the best practice.
> > > 1/ Return negative value in case of error
> > > 2/ Set rte_errno
> > > 3/ Set same absolute value in rte_errno and return code
> >
> > with the approach proposed as best practice above it results in at least
> > the
> > applicaiton code variations as follows.
> >
> > int rv = rte_func_call();
> >
> > 1. if (rv < 0 && rte_errno == EAGAIN)
> >
> > 2. if (rv == -1 && rte_errno == EAGAIN)
> >
> > 3. if (rv < 0 && -rv == EAGAIN)
> >
> > 4. if (rv < 0 && rv == -EAGAIN)
> >
> > (and incorrectly)
> >
> > 5. // ignore rv
> > if (rte_errno == EAGAIN)
> >
> > it might be better practice if indication that an error occurs is
> > signaled distinctly from the error that occurred. otherwise why use
> > rte_errno at all instead returning -rte_errno always?
> >
> > this philosophy would align better with modern posix / unix platform
> > apis. often documented in the RETURN VALUE section of the manpage as:
> >
> > ``Upon successful completion, somefunction() shall return 0;
> > otherwise, -1 shall be returned and errno set to indicate the
> > error.''
> >
> > therefore returning a value outside of the set {0, -1} is an abi break.
>
> I like using this standard, because it also allows consistent behaviour for
> non-integer returning functions, e.g. object creation functions returning
> pointers.
>
> if (ret < 0 && rte_errno == EAGAIN)
i only urge that this be explicit as opposed to a range i.e. ret == -1
preferred over ret < 0
>
> becomes for a pointer:
>
> if (ret == NULL && rte_errno == EAGAIN)
>
> Regards,
> /Bruce
but otherwise i agree, ret indicates an error happened and rte_errno
provides the detail.
