On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 01:03:41PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 11:00:13 -0800
> Tyler Retzlaff <roret...@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > +static char lcore_names[RTE_MAX_LCORE][RTE_LCORE_NAME_MAX_LEN];
>
> This copy would redundant on Linux.
>
> > +
> > +int
> > +rte_lcore_set_name(unsigned int lcore_id, const char *name)
> > +{
> > + if (unlikely(lcore_id >= RTE_MAX_LCORE))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (strlen(name) >= RTE_LCORE_NAME_MAX_LEN)
> > + return -ERANGE;
> > +
> > + (void)strcpy(&lcore_names[lcore_id][0], name);
>
> Why the void cast?
it's a common convention used in various open source projects indicating
the that ignoring the return value is intentional as opposed to being
sloppy or accidental.
if it's a violation of dpdk style i'll remove it. but i have come across
a lot of dpdk code where i honestly can't tell if it is on purpose or
just sloppyness. (sticks out in code reviews too).
