On 25-Jan-18 1:00 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Burakov, Anatoly
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 12:26 PM
To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Tan, Jianfeng
<jianfeng....@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
Cc: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; tho...@monjalon.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] eal: add synchronous multi-process communication
On 25-Jan-18 12:19 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Burakov, Anatoly
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 12:00 PM
To: Tan, Jianfeng <jianfeng....@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
Cc: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
<konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; tho...@monjalon.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] eal: add synchronous multi-process communication
On the overall patch,
Reviewed-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
For request(), returning number of replies received actually makes
sense, because now we get use the value to read our replies, if we were
a primary process sending messages to secondary processes.
Yes, I also think it is good to return number of sends.
Then caller can compare number of sended requests with number of
received replies and decide should it be considered a failure or no.
Well, OK, that might make sense. However, i think it would've be of more
value to make the API consistent (0/-1 on success/failure) and put
number of sent messages into the reply, like number of received. I.e.
something like
struct reply {
int nb_sent;
int nb_received;
};
We do it for the latter already, so why not the former?
The question is what treat as success/failure?
Let say we sent 2 requests (of 3 possible), got back 1 response...
Should we consider it as success or failure?
I think "failure" is "something went wrong", not "secondary processes
didn't respond". For example, invalid parameters, or our socket suddenly
being closed, or some other error that prevents us from sending requests
to secondaries.
As far as i can tell from the code, there's no way to know if the
secondary process is running other than by attempting to connect to it,
and get a response. So, failed connection should not be a failure
condition, because we can't know if we *can* connect to the process
until we do. Process may have ended, but socket files will still be
around, and there's nothing we can do about that. So i wouldn't consider
inability to send a message a failure condition.
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
