From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mbuf: add a non fatal sanity check helper
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:33:44 +0300
Message-ID: <8d525334-f770-7627-4023-c61aa92f4655@solarflare.com>
References: <20180910054547.18494-1-david.marchand@6wind.com>
 <20180910054547.18494-3-david.marchand@6wind.com>
 <86b2ae63-f193-03ce-457d-387b785fb884@solarflare.com>
 <CALwxeUtehsZ9JZy3r0syaD9U4aF5TDKwuoK2kcgL8A9KTLcZyA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>, "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, "Wu, Jingjing"
 <jingjing.wu@intel.com>, "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
To: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>, Olivier Matz
 <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com
 [67.231.154.164]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB64D11A4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:34:17 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <CALwxeUtehsZ9JZy3r0syaD9U4aF5TDKwuoK2kcgL8A9KTLcZyA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 09/10/2018 11:24 AM, David Marchand wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Andrew Rybchenko
> <arybchenko@solarflare.com> wrote:
>> +/**
>> + * Sanity checks on a mbuf.
>> + *
>> + * Almost like rte_mbuf_sanity_check(), but this function gives the reason
>> + * if corruption is detected rather than panic.
>> + *
>> + * @param m
>> + *   The mbuf to be checked.
>> + * @param is_header
>> + *   True if the mbuf is a packet header, false if it is a sub-segment
>> + *   of a packet (in this case, some fields like nb_segs are not checked)
>> + * @param reason
>> + *   A reference to a string pointer where to store the reason why a mbuf
>> is
>> + *   considered invalid.
>> + * @return
>> + *   - 0 if no issue has been found, reason is left untouched.
>> + *   - -1 if a problem is detected, reason then points to a string
>> describing
>> + *     the reason why the mbuf is deemed invalid.
>> + */
>> +__rte_experimental
>> +int rte_mbuf_check(const struct rte_mbuf *m, int is_header,
>> +   const char **reason);
>> +
>>
>>
>> May be it would be better to return reason as return value and if it is NULL
>> everything is OK?
> This was what I had done with my first attempt.
> But given the name "rte_mbuf_check", having a int (used as a bool)
> returned makes sense to me.

Yes, good point.

> So no strong opinion here.

Me too.