On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:59:48 +0100
"Medvedkin, Vladimir" <vladimir.medved...@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On 16/10/2024 06:29, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 17:11:43 +0000
> > Vladimir Medvedkin<vladimir.medved...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Fixes the behavior of the rte_fib_rcu_qsbr_add() function regarding its
> >> return value to align with the existing rte_fib API.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 96c3d06a3547 ("fib: implement RCU rule reclamation")
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Medvedkin<vladimir.medved...@intel.com>
> >> ---
> > Looks good, although DPDK often uses rte_errno, it is better for this part
> > in fib to be consistent across rcu and non-rcu variants.
> Iwouldpreferit tobeconsistentwith the restof the FIBAPI.
> > PS: there don't seem to be any negative tests on this function in test_fib.c
> > would be good to hit some of the basics.
> maybeIdidn'tquiteunderstandyou,butthere is basic negative teston
> thisfunction (plz see test_invalid_rcu() test)
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Stephen Hemminger<step...@networkplumber.org>
>
The test_fib does not do any tests where it calls these functions with
bad arguments and expects failure. Mostly it tries to do normal calls.
