On Thursday 06 July 2017 06:00 PM, Gaëtan Rivet wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 02:49:41PM +0530, santosh wrote: >> Hi Gaetan, >> >> On Wednesday 05 July 2017 05:25 AM, Gaetan Rivet wrote: >> >>> This operation can be used either to validate that a device >>> representation can be understood by a bus, as well as store the resulting >>> specialized device representation in any format determined by the bus. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com> >>> --- >>> lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h >>> b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h >>> index 773b0d7..aebf57e 100644 >>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h >>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h >>> @@ -138,6 +138,26 @@ typedef int (*rte_bus_plug_t)(struct rte_device *dev, >>> typedef int (*rte_bus_unplug_t)(struct rte_device *dev); >>> >>> /** >>> + * Bus specific parsing function. >>> + * Validates the syntax used in the textual representation of a device, >>> + * If the syntax is valid and ``addr`` is not NULL, writes the bus-specific >>> + * device representation to ``addr``. >>> + * >>> + * @param[in] name >>> + * device textual description >>> + * >>> + * @param[out] addr >>> + * device information location address, into which parsed info >>> + * should be written. If NULL, nothing should be written, which >>> + * is not an error. >>> + * >> r / is not a error/ is valid? >> > I'm partial to "is not an error" here, but it doesn't matter that much > and I can change it if you prefer. > >>> + * @return >>> + * 0 if parsing was successful. >>> + * !0 for any error. >>> + */ >>> +typedef int (*rte_bus_parse_t)(const char *name, void *addr); >>> + >> _parse handler in _common_vdev or common_pci file return boolean value >> i.e..0 for success and 1 for error, right? if so then >> !0 for any error would be like '1' for error case.. make sense? >> > I thought of that yes, and actually your suggestion was the first > version I used. > > Ultimately however, this function is not only saying "can parse": it is > not merely a test of being able to process the input, but also the > process itself. The test value is then a byproduct. > > As such, I decided to settle on the standard "0 means nothing of note > happened, carry on".
I'm not aware of past work history, catching up with stuff so no strong opinion but In my opinion: if we're sure about return values then better mention them explicitly. Thanks.
