> -----Original Message----- > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 6:54 AM > To: Rao, Nikhil <[email protected]> > Cc: Varghese, Vipin <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Jacob, Jerin > <[email protected]>; Van Haaren, Harry > <[email protected]>; Hemant Agrawal <[email protected]>; > Jain, Deepak K <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] event/rx_adapter: fix ignore return of event start > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > Adding eventdev PMD folks for their suggestions on how to handle the return > value from rte_event_dev_start() below. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Varghese, Vipin > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 4:26 AM > > > To: [email protected]; Rao, Nikhil <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Jain, Deepak K <[email protected]>; Varghese, Vipin > > > <[email protected]> > > > Subject: [PATCH] event/rx_adapter: fix ignore return of event start > > > > > > Capture the return value for rte_event_dev_start. Return the result > > > back to user. > > > > > > Coverity issue: 257000 > > > Fixes: 9c38b704d280 ("eventdev: add eth Rx adapter implementation") > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vipin Varghese <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_rx_adapter.c | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_rx_adapter.c > > > b/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_rx_adapter.c > > > index 90106e6..a818bef 100644 > > > --- a/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_rx_adapter.c > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_rx_adapter.c > > > @@ -603,7 +603,7 @@ static uint16_t gcd_u16(uint16_t a, uint16_t b) > > > RTE_EDEV_LOG_ERR("failed to configure event dev %u\n", > > > dev_id); > > > if (started) > > > - rte_event_dev_start(dev_id); > > > + ret = rte_event_dev_start(dev_id); > > > > Currently the a non-zero return value at this point signifies an error > > returned > from rte_event_dev_configure(), so I suggest that the return value is > typecasted > to void. > > If I understand it correctly, Any one of the failure(configure() or start()) > should > result in bad state. Right? > i.e If some reason PMD is not able to start() even after failure > configuration() > would result in bad state. > If so, one option could be combine the error like ret |= operation or create a > new logical error in Rx adapter which denotes this new error. >
So do we agree to ACK these changes to get the code fix to the mainline? Then rework the logic as required? > > > > > return ret; > > > } > > > > > > @@ -617,7 +617,7 @@ static uint16_t gcd_u16(uint16_t a, uint16_t b) > > > conf->event_port_id = port_id; > > > conf->max_nb_rx = 128; > > > if (started) > > > - rte_event_dev_start(dev_id); > > > + ret = rte_event_dev_start(dev_id); > > This change looks good to me. > > > > > rx_adapter->default_cb_arg = 1; > > > return ret; > > > } > > > -- > > > 1.9.1 > >
