On 2/25/2016 7:17 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>>> +int
>>>> +rte_eth_dev_get_ptype_info(uint8_t port_id, uint32_t ptype_mask,
>>>> + uint32_t ptypes[], int num)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int ret, i, j;
>>>> + struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
>>>> + uint32_t all_ptypes[RTE_PTYPE_MAX_NUM];
>>>> +
>>>> + RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
>>>> + dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
>>>> + RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->dev_ptype_info_get, -ENOTSUP);
>>>> + ret = (*dev->dev_ops->dev_ptype_info_get)(dev, all_ptypes);
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = 0, j = 0; i < ret && j < num; ++i)
>>>> + if (all_ptypes[i] & ptype_mask)
>>>> + ptypes[j++] = all_ptypes[i];
>>>> +
>>>> + return ret;
>>> I think it needs to be something like:
>>>
>>> j = 0;
>>> for (i = 0, j = 0; i < ret; ++i) {
>>> if (all_ptypes[i] & ptype_mask) {
>>> if (j < num)
>>> ptypes[j] = all_ptypes[i];
>>> j++;
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> return j;
>>>
>>> Konstantin
>>>
>> You are right, my previous code is wrong.
>> But I have a concern about your code above: under the condition that the
>> caller does not provide big enough array to store adequate ptypes, it
>> has no way to return the not-enough-memory message back to caller.
>>
>> So under that condition, how about we just return -ENOMEM?
>>
> As I remember, the agreement was - we don't return an -ENOMEM in that case.
> What we do return - number of entries in ptypes[] that would be required to
> store all adequate ptypes (similar to what snprinf() does).
> So the user can do something like that (if he needs to):
>
> num = rte_eth_dev_get_ptype_info(port, ptype_mask, NULL, 0);
> if (num < 0) {/*error handling*/}
> ptypes = alloca(num * ptypes[0]);
> n = rte_eth_dev_get_ptype_info(port, ptype_mask, ptypes, num);
> ...
>
> Konstantin
>
Oh, yes. Sorry, I previously misunderstood your code.
But I still have a concern of above way that this APIs should be called
two times. I suggest to use a way, like strdup, callee to malloc, caller
to free. I send out v3 right now, please have a look at if it's OK.
Thanks,
Jianfeng
