On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:08:42 +0000, Bruce Richardson
<bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 11:22:40AM +0100, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 11:32:10 +0000, Bruce Richardson
> > <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > The bulk fns for rings returns 0 for all elements enqueued and negative
> > > for no space. Change that to make them consistent with the burst functions
> > > in returning the number of elements enqueued/dequeued, i.e. 0 or N.
> > > This change also allows the return value from enq/deq to be used directly
> > > without a branch for error checking.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -716,7 +695,7 @@ rte_ring_enqueue_bulk(struct rte_ring *r, void *
> > > const *obj_table,
> > > static inline int __attribute__((always_inline))
> > > rte_ring_mp_enqueue(struct rte_ring *r, void *obj)
> > > {
> > > - return rte_ring_mp_enqueue_bulk(r, &obj, 1);
> > > + return rte_ring_mp_enqueue_bulk(r, &obj, 1) ? 0 : -ENOBUFS;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /**
> >
> > I'm wondering if these functions (enqueue/dequeue of one element) should
> > be modified to return 0 (fail) or 1 (success) too, for consistency with
> > the bulk functions.
> >
> > Any opinion?
> >
> I thought about that, but I would view it as risky, unless we want to go
> changing the parameters to the function also, as the compiler won't flag
> a change in return value like that.
>
Ok, I have no better solution anyway.
Olivier
