Hi, On 01/04/2021 02:21, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
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)
Kind of yes, on purpose. It has been like that for a long time already; it's simpler to keep errors positive in all such small internal helpers and then negate the result in the place where rte_flow_error_set() is used. We understand the concern of yours; our code is tested for error path correctness every now and again. If there're some inconsistencies, we are ready to fix such in no time.
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?
Yes, your understanding is correct. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Ivan M
