[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 07/11] net/hinic/base: add various headers

[Xuanziyang (William, Chip Application Design Logic and Hardware Development Dept IT_Products & Solutions)]

> On 6/6/2019 12:06 PM, Ziyang Xuan wrote:
> > Add various headers that define mgmt commands, cmdq commands, rx
> data
> > structures, tx data structures and basic defines for use in the code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ziyang Xuan <xuanziyang2 at huawei.com>
> 
> <...>
> 
> > +#define PMD_DRV_LOG(level, fmt, args...) \
> > +	rte_log(RTE_LOG_ ## level, hinic_logtype, \
> > +		HINIC_DRIVER_NAME": " fmt "\n", ##args)
> > +
> > +#define HINIC_ASSERT_EN
> > +
> > +#ifdef HINIC_ASSERT_EN
> > +#define HINIC_ASSERT(exp)	\
> > +	do {			\
> > +		if (!(exp)) {	\
> > +			rte_panic("line%d\tassert \"" #exp "\" failed\n", \
> > +				  __LINE__);	\
> > +		}		\
> > +	} while (0)
> > +#else
> > +#define HINIC_ASSERT(exp)	do {} while (0)
> > +#endif
> 
> So you are enabling asserting by default? Which can cause "rte_panic()" ?
> 
> Please make sure asserting is disabled by default, and please tie this to the
> "CONFIG_RTE_ENABLE_ASSERT" config option. So it that option is disabled
> hinic also should disable the assertions.

I checked the places where use rte_panic, most of them can use code logic to guarantee correctness. And I have referenced other PMDs like mlx5, they use
rte_panic directly but use custom encapsulation, so I delete custom encapsulation  above and the most rte_panic usage, and use directly like mlx5.

Is it OK?