On Tuesday 23 October 2018 03:21 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 10/23/2018 8:09 AM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
>> Besides the comment I sent before about 'Fixes' before sign-off, a
>> single trivial comment inline ...
>>
>> On Tuesday 23 October 2018 07:20 AM, Rosen Xu wrote:
>>> This patch fixes rte_eal_hotplug_add without checking return value issue
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rosen Xu <rosen...@intel.com>
>>> Fixes: ef1e8ede3da5 ("raw/ifpga: add Intel FPGA bus rawdev driver")
>>> Cc: rosen...@intel.com
>>> ---
>>> drivers/raw/ifpga_rawdev/ifpga_rawdev.c | 5 +++--
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/raw/ifpga_rawdev/ifpga_rawdev.c
>>> b/drivers/raw/ifpga_rawdev/ifpga_rawdev.c
>>> index 3fed057..32e318f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/raw/ifpga_rawdev/ifpga_rawdev.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/raw/ifpga_rawdev/ifpga_rawdev.c
>>> @@ -542,6 +542,7 @@
>>> int port;
>>> char *name = NULL;
>>> char dev_name[RTE_RAWDEV_NAME_MAX_LEN];
>>> + int ret = -1;
>>>
>>> devargs = dev->device.devargs;
>>>
>>> @@ -583,7 +584,7 @@
>>> snprintf(dev_name, RTE_RAWDEV_NAME_MAX_LEN, "%d|%s",
>>> port, name);
>>>
>>> - rte_eal_hotplug_add(RTE_STR(IFPGA_BUS_NAME),
>>> + ret = rte_eal_hotplug_add(RTE_STR(IFPGA_BUS_NAME),
>>> dev_name, devargs->args);
>>
>> Ideally, the function argument spreading on next line should start
>> underneath the previous arguments - something like:
>>
>> ret = rte_eal_hotplug_add(RTE_STR(IFPGA_BUS_NAME),
>> dev_name, devargs->args);
>
> Hi Shreyansh,
>
> According dpdk coding convention [1], indentation done by hard tab, code seems
> inline with coding convention, only perhaps can be done single tab instead of
> double.
>
> And to remind again, I am not for syntax discussions but just defining one and
> consistently follow it .
>
> [1]
> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/coding_style.html#c-indentation
> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/coding_style.html#prototypes
>
Oh!. Thanks - something I had missed reading.
I don't want to hijack the conversation, but for my clarity, I think
>>> snprintf(dev_name, RTE_RAWDEV_NAME_MAX_LEN, "%d|%s",
>>> port, name);
won't be correct. Right?
I am not suggesting that it should be changed now that it is already
part of code.
>>
>> But, in this file this is not being done at multiple places (for
>> example, the snprintf in this code snippet). So, either you can ignore
>> this comment, or fix it for just this change.
>>
>>> end:
>>> if (kvlist)
>>> @@ -591,7 +592,7 @@
>>> if (name)
>>> free(name);
>>>
>>> - return 0;
>>> + return ret;
>>> }
>>>
>>> static int
>>>
>>
>> Otherwise, the patch is simple enough.
>>
>> Acked-by: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com>
>>
>
