On 6 April 2015 at 08:00, Bill Fischofer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Mike Holmes <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Fixes CID 89196 >> >> Signed-off-by: Mike Holmes <[email protected]> >> --- >> test/validation/classification/odp_classification_tests.c | 7 ++++--- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/test/validation/classification/odp_classification_tests.c >> b/test/validation/classification/odp_classification_tests.c >> index 0530f99..1bf080f 100644 >> --- a/test/validation/classification/odp_classification_tests.c >> +++ b/test/validation/classification/odp_classification_tests.c >> @@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ static int cls_pkt_set_seq(odp_packet_t pkt) >> static uint32_t seq; >> cls_test_packet_t data; >> uint32_t offset; >> + int status; >> >> data.magic = DATA_MAGIC; >> data.seq = ++seq; >> @@ -133,10 +134,10 @@ static int cls_pkt_set_seq(odp_packet_t pkt) >> offset = odp_packet_l4_offset(pkt); >> CU_ASSERT_FATAL(offset != 0); >> >> - odp_packet_copydata_in(pkt, offset + ODPH_UDPHDR_LEN, >> - sizeof(data), &data); >> + status = odp_packet_copydata_in(pkt, offset + ODPH_UDPHDR_LEN, >> + sizeof(data), &data); >> >> > Wouldn't it be simpler to say: > > return odp_packet_copydata_in(...); ? > I find it easier to read a return which is not also a function call. I also find it easier to single step in a debugger with this because I can stop in the function after the call more clearly. > > >> - return 0; >> + return status; >> } >> >> static uint32_t cls_pkt_get_seq(odp_packet_t pkt) >> -- >> 2.1.0 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lng-odp mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp >> > > -- Mike Holmes Technical Manager - Linaro Networking Group Linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> *│ *Open source software for ARM SoCs
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
