12/03/2021 12:07, Ivan Malov:
> +static int
> +sfc_mae_encap_header_add(struct sfc_adapter *sa,
> + const struct sfc_mae_bounce_eh *bounce_eh,
> + struct sfc_mae_encap_header **encap_headerp)
> +{
> + struct sfc_mae_encap_header *encap_header;
> + struct sfc_mae *mae = &sa->mae;
> +
> + SFC_ASSERT(sfc_adapter_is_locked(sa));
> +
> + encap_header = rte_zmalloc("sfc_mae_encap_header",
> + sizeof(*encap_header), 0);
> + if (encap_header == NULL)
> + return ENOMEM;
> +
> + encap_header->size = bounce_eh->size;
> +
> + encap_header->buf = rte_malloc("sfc_mae_encap_header_buf",
> + encap_header->size, 0);
> + if (encap_header->buf == NULL) {
> + rte_free(encap_header);
> + return ENOMEM;
> + }
Are the error codes positives on purpose?
checkpatch is throwing this warning:
USE_NEGATIVE_ERRNO: return of an errno should typically be negative (ie: return
-ENOMEM)
Also the base code has a lot of these warnings:
RETURN_PARENTHESES: return is not a function, parentheses are not required
I guess you cannot do anything to avoid it in base code?
