On 3/15/21 11:55 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 15/03/2021 09:43, Andrew Rybchenko: >> On 3/15/21 10:54 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> 15/03/2021 08:18, Andrew Rybchenko: >>>> On 3/12/21 8:46 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.c >>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.c >>>>> @@ -255,18 +255,19 @@ rte_flow_ops_get(uint16_t port_id, struct >>>>> rte_flow_error *error) >>>>> >>>>> if (unlikely(!rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port(port_id))) >>>>> code = ENODEV; >>>>> - else if (unlikely(!dev->dev_ops->filter_ctrl || >>>>> - dev->dev_ops->filter_ctrl(dev, >>>>> - RTE_ETH_FILTER_GENERIC, >>>>> - RTE_ETH_FILTER_GET, >>>>> - &ops) || >>>>> - !ops)) >>>>> - code = ENOSYS; >>>>> + else if (unlikely(dev->dev_ops->flow_ops_get == NULL)) >>>>> + code = ENOTSUP;
It is described as: -ENOTSUP: valid but unsupported rule specification (e.g. partial bit-masks are unsupported). So, it looks different. May be it is really better to keep ENOSYS. >>>>> else >>>>> - return ops; >>>>> - rte_flow_error_set(error, code, RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED, >>>>> - NULL, rte_strerror(code)); >>>>> - return NULL; >>>>> + code = dev->dev_ops->flow_ops_get(dev, &ops); >>>>> + if (code == 0 && ops == NULL) >>>>> + code = EACCES; >>>> It looks something new. I think it should be mentioned in flow_ops_get >>>> type documentation (similar to eth_promiscuous_enable_t) and >>>> rte_flow_validate() etc functions >>>> return values description. >>> >>> It is an internal function used only in rte_flow.c. >>> The real consequence is to set rte_errno in a lot of rte_flow API. >>> Not sure there is a good way to document the code details. >>> Other codes are not documented in rte_flow.h >> >> First of all it is a behaviour of the flow_ops_get callback and >> driver developers should know that it is a legal to return 0 and >> ops==NULL and know what it means. > > The combination code 0 and ops NULL is not new. > Previously, it was returning ENOSYS. > I've just given a more meaningful error code: EACCES, > while replacing ENOSYS with ENOTSUP for the other case. Yes, exactly. What I'm trying to say that it would be helpful to make it a bit more transparent to PMD developers. Yes, it was not documented before, I agree. I think it is a good time to improve documentation. >> Second, it is visible as rte_flow_validate() (and other functions >> which use rte_flow_ops_get()) return value value which has >> special meaning. So, should be documented. > > Yes, I should update the API doc where ENOSYS was mentioned. > Or probably better: I should keep the error code ENOSYS > and do not break API. > Preference? Good question. I think we should not distinguish NULL callback and NULL ops returned by not-NULL callback. So, I think keeping ENOSYS is the best option here.