[dpdk-dev,v4,09/11] eal: replace rte_panic instances in ethdev

  Local function to this file,
changing from void to int is non-abi-breaking

Signed-off-by: Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>
---
 lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
  

On 04/19/2018 07:01 AM, Arnon Warshavsky wrote:
> Local function to this file,
> changing from void to int is non-abi-breaking
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>
> ---
>  lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
> index 7821a88..9c13827 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
> @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ enum {
>  	return port_id;
>  }
>  
> -static void
> +static int
>  rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare(void)
>  {
>  	const unsigned flags = 0;
> @@ -210,8 +210,12 @@ enum {
>  					rte_socket_id(), flags);
>  		} else
>  			mz = rte_memzone_lookup(MZ_RTE_ETH_DEV_DATA);
> -		if (mz == NULL)
> -			rte_panic("Cannot allocate ethdev shared data\n");
> +		if (mz == NULL) {
> +			rte_spinlock_unlock(&rte_eth_shared_data_lock);
> +			RTE_LOG(CRIT, EAL, "%s(): Cannot allocate ethdev shared data\n",
> +					__func__);
> +			return -1;
> +		}
>  
>  		rte_eth_dev_shared_data = mz->addr;
>  		if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY) {
> @@ -224,6 +228,8 @@ enum {
>  	}
>  
>  	rte_spinlock_unlock(&rte_eth_shared_data_lock);
> +
> +	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  struct rte_eth_dev *
> @@ -274,7 +280,8 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
>  	uint16_t port_id;
>  	struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev = NULL;
>  
> -	rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare();
> +	if (rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare() != 0)

Lots of "!= 0"'s - you might gather by now that I don't like them :-)

> +		return NULL;
>  
>  	/* Synchronize port creation between primary and secondary threads. */
>  	rte_spinlock_lock(&rte_eth_dev_shared_data->ownership_lock);
> @@ -317,7 +324,8 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
>  	uint16_t i;
>  	struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev = NULL;
>  
> -	rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare();
> +	if (rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare() != 0)
> +		return NULL;
>  
>  	/* Synchronize port attachment to primary port creation and release. */
>  	rte_spinlock_lock(&rte_eth_dev_shared_data->ownership_lock);
> @@ -345,7 +353,8 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
>  	if (eth_dev == NULL)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare();
> +	if (rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare() != 0)
> +		return -1;
>  
>  	rte_spinlock_lock(&rte_eth_dev_shared_data->ownership_lock);
>  
> @@ -399,7 +408,8 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
>  int __rte_experimental
>  rte_eth_dev_owner_new(uint64_t *owner_id)
>  {
> -	rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare();
> +	if (rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare() != 0)
> +		return -1;
>  
>  	rte_spinlock_lock(&rte_eth_dev_shared_data->ownership_lock);
>  
> @@ -450,7 +460,8 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
>  {
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare();
> +	if (rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare() != 0)
> +		return -1;
>  
>  	rte_spinlock_lock(&rte_eth_dev_shared_data->ownership_lock);
>  
> @@ -467,7 +478,8 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
>  			{.id = RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER, .name = ""};
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare();
> +	if (rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare() != 0)
> +		return -1;
>  
>  	rte_spinlock_lock(&rte_eth_dev_shared_data->ownership_lock);
>  
> @@ -482,7 +494,8 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
>  {

hmm, I'm wondering should void __rte_experimental
rte_eth_dev_owner_delete change to return an int, now that there is a
fail case and it is still experimental...?

>  	uint16_t port_id;
>  
> -	rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare();
> +	if (rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare() != 0)
> +		return;
>  
>  	rte_spinlock_lock(&rte_eth_dev_shared_data->ownership_lock);
>  
> @@ -502,7 +515,8 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
>  {
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
> -	rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare();
> +	if (rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare() != 0)
> +		return -1;
>  
>  	rte_spinlock_lock(&rte_eth_dev_shared_data->ownership_lock);
>  
>
  

>
> Lots of "!= 0"'s - you might gather by now that I don't like them :-)
>

No way. Would have never guessed that :)
Sure. When in Rome..


>
> hmm, I'm wondering should void __rte_experimental
> rte_eth_dev_owner_delete change to return an int, now that there is a
> fail case and it is still experimental...?
>

Good point. Missed that
thanks
/Arnon
  

20/04/2018 15:23, Arnon Warshavsky:
> >
> > Lots of "!= 0"'s - you might gather by now that I don't like them :-)
> >
> 
> No way. Would have never guessed that :)
> Sure. When in Rome..

It is a matter of taste. I like the explicit "!= 0".
At least, explicit NULL comparisons are recommended in the coding style:
	http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/coding_style.html#null-pointers
For boolean return, it is OK to be implicit.
But for error codes, I think it is better to be explicit.
Again, matter of taste.

By the way, looking at "git grep 'if (rte_'" suggests it is common.