From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp48.i.mail.ru (smtp48.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.108])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C66A469719
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Fri, 20 Mar 2020 03:11:04 +0300 (MSK)
References: <cover.1583366981.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
 <4bfd55d1ec53a21acd83114ea6bef36c6345c038.1583366981.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
 <20200319152752.GM6392@tarantool.org>
From: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <af89a1da-55d1-3e66-00a5-8eee48471a58@tarantool.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 01:11:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200319152752.GM6392@tarantool.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 1/2] box: fail in box_check_config()
	on bad sql cache size
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Igor Munkin <imun@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

Thanks for the review!

On 19/03/2020 16:27, Igor Munkin wrote:
> Vlad,
> 
> Thanks for the patch, LGTM.
> 
> On 05.03.20, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
>> It was calling box_check_sql_cache_size() assuming that it
>> throws. But it returns 0/-1.
>> ---
>>  src/box/box.cc | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/box/box.cc b/src/box/box.cc
>> index 09dd67ab4..0212f34ad 100644
>> --- a/src/box/box.cc
>> +++ b/src/box/box.cc
>> @@ -669,7 +669,8 @@ box_check_config()
>>  	box_check_memtx_memory(cfg_geti64("memtx_memory"));
>>  	box_check_memtx_min_tuple_size(cfg_geti64("memtx_min_tuple_size"));
>>  	box_check_vinyl_options();
>> -	box_check_sql_cache_size(cfg_geti("sql_cache_size"));
>> +	if (box_check_sql_cache_size(cfg_geti("sql_cache_size")) != 0)
> 
> Side note: I'm just curious what are the rationale to use '!= 0' here
> and '< 0' nearby in the following patch.

box_check_sql_cache_size() returns 0/-1.

box_check_memory_quota() returns -1/size.

So for 0/-1 I used a more or less commonly used way of
checking for an error when a function returns these 2 values.

For box_check_memory_quota() I used < 0, because != 0
does not mean an error here.

> 
>> +		diag_raise();
>>  }
>>  
>>  /*
>> -- 
>> 2.21.1 (Apple Git-122.3)
>>
>