From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev,
	2/2] ethdev: move code to common place in hotplug
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:06:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CALwxeUsR0ZZFg7UopYyshV-xnwRJiV82h2qC6xmC=ONfz6S9xA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1453377431-25850-3-git-send-email-david.marchand@6wind.com>
 <20160121163836.0bcd405e@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-oi0-f50.google.com (mail-oi0-f50.google.com
 [209.85.218.50]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393D08E94
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:07:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-oi0-f50.google.com with SMTP id k206so32009873oia.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:07:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20160121163836.0bcd405e@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>

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:57:11 +0100
> David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>> @@ -612,14 +599,25 @@ int
>>  rte_eth_dev_attach(const char *devargs, uint8_t *port_id)
>>  {
>>       struct rte_pci_addr addr;
>> +     int ret = -1;
>>
>>       if ((devargs == NULL) || (port_id == NULL))
>> -             return -EINVAL;
>> +             goto err;
>
> This change modifies the return value from -EINVAL to -1. I don't know
> whether is this an issue but it looks suspicious.

Should not be an issue, as the api does not give details on expected
negative return values.
Just noticed, this also introduces a new log message that was not
displayed before.

To be safe, I suppose I should restore this.

Thomas, opinion ?


Thanks.
-- 
David Marchand