On 22 April 2015 at 08:57, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) < petri.savolai...@nokia.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of ext > > Taras Kondratiuk > > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 2:47 PM > > To: Mike Holmes > > Cc: LNG ODP Mailman List > > Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: odp_pool: add double destroy > > > > On 04/22/2015 02:29 PM, Mike Holmes wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 22 April 2015 at 07:26, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org > > > <mailto:bill.fischo...@linaro.org>> wrote: > > > > > > Good points. I agree it's better to leave this behavior undefined. > > > > > > > > > If that is consensus I will send a patch for the docs to add. > > > > > > "Deleting an already deleted pool results in unspecified behavior." > > > > odp_pktio_t, odp_shm_t, etc also cannot be destroyed twice. I think it > > valid for any ODP handle. > > > > I think it should be more generic. > > "Using an already destroyed ODP handle results in undefined behavior." > > Agree. This could be documented on the top level of API reference manual > (doxygen docs). > It can be at the top as a general point, should be as a principle I agree. However that is not what an Engineer sees when looking up an API, I think we should state it per delete API, that is a very small overhead and very explicit for the few delete apis. > > -Petri > > -- Mike Holmes Technical Manager - Linaro Networking Group Linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> *│ *Open source software for ARM SoCs
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list lng-odp@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
