On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:57:10 +0100 David Marchand <david.marchand at 6wind.com> wrote:
> We are in static functions and those passed arguments can't be NULL. > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand at 6wind.com> > > --- > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 15 --------------- > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > index af990e2..951fb1c 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > @@ -220,9 +220,6 @@ rte_eth_dev_create_unique_device_name(char *name, size_t > size, > { > int ret; > > - if ((name == NULL) || (pci_dev == NULL)) > - return -EINVAL; Do you use a kind of assert in DPDK? The patch looks OK, however, I would prefer something like assert_not_null(name); assert_not_null(pci_dev); Usually, if some outer code is broken by mistake, the assert catches such an issue. At the same time, it documents the code by telling "this must never be NULL here". I agree, that returning -EINVAL for this kind of check is incorrect. Same for other changes... > [snip]