Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/6] ethdev: add devop to check removal status

[Matan Azrad]

HI

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 7:20 PM
> To: Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com>
> Cc: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <tho...@monjalon.net>; Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com>;
> dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/6] ethdev: add devop to check removal
> status
> 
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:10:10 +0000
> Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> wrote:
> 
> >  int
> > +rte_eth_dev_is_removed(uint16_t port_id) {
> > +   struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
> > +   int ret;
> > +
> > +   RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, 0);
> > +
> > +   dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
> > +
> > +   RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->is_removed, 0);
> > +
> > +   if (dev->state == RTE_ETH_DEV_REMOVED)
> > +           return 1;
> > +
> > +   ret = dev->dev_ops->is_removed(dev);
> > +   if (ret != 0)
> > +           dev->state = RTE_ETH_DEV_REMOVED;
> > +
> > +   return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> 
> This looks good.
> May be a candidate to use bool instead of int for return value?

Yes, I thought about it but didn't see any precedence for bool usage in ethdev 
APIs.
Guys, what do you think?