Mismatch between return value and documentation for `rte_hash_lookup_data` (cuckoo hashing implementation)

https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78

Bug ID: 78
Summary: Mismatch between return value and documentation for
rte_hash_lookup_data (cuckoo hashing implementation)
Product: DPDK
Version: 18.05
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: CONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: Normal
Component: doc
Assignee: [email protected]
Reporter: [email protected]
Target Milestone: ---

Documentation for rte_hash_lookup_data specifies that this method returns 0 on successful data lookup or positive error code on not-found / wrong parameters. In reality it returns positive index of found data on success and negative error on error, in essence it behaves the same as (i.e. the same as rte_hash_lookup while also (correctly) populating the data pointer).

rte_cuckoo_hash.c: 733

```c
int
rte_hash_lookup_data(const struct rte_hash *h, const void *key, void **data) {
                RETURN_IF_TRUE(((h == NULL) || (key == NULL)), -EINVAL);
                return __rte_hash_lookup_with_hash(h, key, rte_hash_hash(h,
key), data); } ```

Rte_cuckoo_hash.c: 693
```c

static inline int32_t
__rte_hash_lookup_with_hash(const struct rte_hash *h, const void *key,

hash_sig_t sig, void **data) {
                ...
                                                                /*
                                                                * Return index
where key is stored,
                                                                * subtracting
the first dummy index
                                                                */
                                                                return

bkt->key_idx[i] - 1; ```

DPDK version 18.05 release.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78

Ajit Khaparde ([email protected]) changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Status|IN_PROGRESS                 |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |[email protected]
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #2 from Ajit Khaparde ([email protected]) --- Thanks Pablo. Since the patch has been accepted, I am resolving this.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.