On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 02:00:54PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> Hi Gaetan
>
<snip>
> > > > Your environment does not include the function, but this is within
> > > > fs_flow_destroy (please update to include the context by the way it
> > > > helps a lot the review :). Afterward, line 162 ret is directly used as
> > > > return
> > value.
> > > >
> > > I don't understand what do you mean.
> > >
> > > > Also, fs_err() would need to transform rte_errno when relevant
> > > > (mostly in failsafe_flow.c I think).
> > > >
> > > Your suggestion is always to update rte_errno to 0 in case the error is
> > because of removal?
> > >
> >
> > If the error is indeed due to the device being absent, then rte_errno should
> > be set back to its previous value I think.
> So, I think it will require old rte_errno save before each device command...
> Why not to set it to 0 in the special case(removal) by the new internal API?
>
Resetting it to 0 might be sufficient, yes.
There might be some old-school devs out-there that would such things as:
do_thing_x();
do_thing_y();
do_thing_z();
if (check_for_any_error(errno)) {
abort();
}
But I'm not too fond of this kind of pattern, so I'm not specifically
opposed to code that does not go with this flow.
--
Gaëtan Rivet
6WIND
