On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:28:14AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 01:28:09AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > From: Marcin Hajkowski <marcinx.hajkow...@intel.com> > > > > > > > > Function rte_power_set_env will no longer return > > > > success on attempt to set env in initialized state. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcin Hajkowski <marcinx.hajkow...@intel.com> > > > > > > Acked-by: David Hunt <david.h...@intel.com> > > > > Any other comment about this deprecation notice? > > > Seems ok to me, though the actual text is maybe a little unclear. It > implies that the function will always return -1 unless the variable is > unset when the function terminates (which seems to imply a failure case). > What I presume is meant is that we have three possibilities: > > * The variable is set by the function -> return 0 > * The varaible is already set, so no action needed -> return -1 (and set > rte_errno to EEXIST or EALREADY??) > * Setting the variable failed -> return -1 (and set rte_errno to ??) > > Is my understanding correct? Can the deprecation notice be improved to make > it clear that only the middle case is the one being changed, e.g. by adding > "in this case" to the second sentence. It might also be worthwhile calling > out what the errno value will be to identify this failure vs regular > failures. > > /Bruce > > PS: For this case, is there a reason to make it an error? Would a +1 value > not also do, so anything non-zero implies no work done, and anything >=0 > means that the value is set? Call set on something already set doesn't > really seem like an error case to me.
Sorry, forgot to put: For changing the ABI itself, no issues, so with the small rewording asked for, please add my ack. Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
