From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev,1/2] ethdev: remove useless null checks
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:11:47 +0100
Message-ID: <14115211.gcWZQ474Ox@xps13>
References: <1453377431-25850-2-git-send-email-david.marchand@6wind.com>
 <20160121200225.60cffcfd@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F928EA1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:12:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id l65so252449326wmf.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 01:12:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20160121200225.60cffcfd@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-01-21 20:02, Jan Viktorin:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:57:10 +0100
> David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com> wrote:
> > -	if ((name == NULL) || (pci_dev == NULL))
> > -		return -EINVAL;
> 
> Do you use a kind of assert in DPDK? The patch looks OK, however, I
> would prefer something like
> 
> 	assert_not_null(name);
> 	assert_not_null(pci_dev);
> 
> Usually, if some outer code is broken by mistake, the assert catches
> such an issue. At the same time, it documents the code by telling
> "this must never be NULL here". I agree, that returning -EINVAL for
> this kind of check is incorrect.
> 
> Same for other changes...

For this patch, I agree to remove useless checks.
For the other checks, EINVAL seems to be the right error code.
And yes you are right, we could replace most of EINVAL returns by a kind
of assert. RTE_VERIFY would be appropriate.