On 11/18/2021 8:19 PM, Tyler Retzlaff wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 07:28:02PM +0000, eagost...@nvidia.com wrote:
From: Elena Agostini <eagost...@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Elena Agostini <eagost...@nvidia.com>
---
lib/gpudev/gpudev.c | 10 ++++++++++
lib/gpudev/rte_gpudev.h | 2 ++
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/gpudev/gpudev.c b/lib/gpudev/gpudev.c
index 2b174d8bd5..97575ed979 100644
--- a/lib/gpudev/gpudev.c
+++ b/lib/gpudev/gpudev.c
@@ -576,6 +576,11 @@ rte_gpu_mem_free(int16_t dev_id, void *ptr)
return -rte_errno;
}
+ if (ptr == NULL) {
+ rte_errno = EINVAL;
+ return -rte_errno;
+ }
in general dpdk has real problems with how it indicates that an error
occurred and what error occurred consistently.
some api's return 0 on success
and maybe return -errno if ! 0
and maybe return errno if ! 0
and maybe set rte_errno if ! 0
some api's return -1 on failure
and set rte_errno if -1
some api's return < 0 on failure
and maybe set rte_errno
and maybe return -errno
and maybe set rte_errno and return -rte_errno
This is a generic comment, cc'ed a few more folks to make the comment more
visible.
this isn't isiolated to only this change but since additions and context
in this patch highlight it maybe it's a good time to bring it up.
it's frustrating to have to carefully read the implementation every time
you want to make a function call to make sure you're handling the flavor
of error reporting for a particular function.
if this is new code could we please clearly identify the current best
practice and follow it as a standard going forward for all new public
apis.
thanks!
