From: ext Mike Holmes [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:00 PM To: Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) Cc: ext Taras Kondratiuk; LNG ODP Mailman List Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: odp_pool: add double destroy
On 22 April 2015 at 08:57, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: lng-odp > [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] > 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 > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> 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. Per delete API is OK. No need to repeat it on every API call that has a handle parameter. -Petri
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
