06/10/2020 11:43, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 10/5/2020 6:08 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > The API function rte_eth_dev_close() was returning void.
> > The return type is changed to int for notifying of errors.
> >
> > If an error happens during a close operation,
> > the status of the port is undefined,
> > a maximum of resources having been freed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > Reviewed-by: Liron Himi <lir...@marvell.com>
> > Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
>
> <...>
>
> > -void
> > +int
> > rte_eth_dev_close(uint16_t port_id)
> > {
> > struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
> > + int firsterr, binerr;
> > + int *lasterr = &firsterr;
> >
> > - RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_RET(port_id);
> > + RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -EINVAL);
> > dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
> >
> > - RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->dev_close);
> > - (*dev->dev_ops->dev_close)(dev);
> > + RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->dev_close, -ENOTSUP);
> > + *lasterr = (*dev->dev_ops->dev_close)(dev);
> > + if (*lasterr != 0)
> > + lasterr = &binerr;
> >
> > rte_ethdev_trace_close(port_id);
> > - rte_eth_dev_release_port(dev);
> > + *lasterr = rte_eth_dev_release_port(dev);
> > +
> > + return firsterr;
> > }
>
> This may be personal taste but above error handling looks like unnecessary
> complex, what do you think something like below:
>
> close_err = (*dev->dev_ops->dev_close)(dev);
> release_err = rte_eth_dev_release_port(dev);
> return close_err ? close_err : release_err;
This is what I did first. Then thought about this "elegant" handling.
The pointer solution is just one more line and is more future proof.
I'm fine with any choice. Andrew?
