From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8DE3A00C2; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 21:59:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF5F1C199; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 21:59:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com (new4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.230]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F3A1BFA8 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 21:59:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E485800D8; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 15:59:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 25 Apr 2020 15:59:34 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= oB3/TGxmOOdFWQnlTEr8a6OPwANY372WU/BFGdzA4/g=; b=CbsZHlnzDIHGJgIE Yh3EPyS6Xlk3Ys8+W46g4HGasmssPML54JhzagJc6jzITpIoAONyjotR9LhGmSqg MdXjRPNr/6qxBmGiAEKrYyEKJr8bJa9a6pjfPJPKfaRKmq4o1CESO6xFoNSniJOB Hkd/lFJ6AIdzmFIsclwB3Ti/JcW7umiieIgDsO5OPTIw6DUKmCbKO2d0viBra+qh VDLcFNyBn4JOKwfBmoW66i7zFYebltVGFgMs565l2pP7O/0l4rvaaHJIDmJK+CSS 7qFZVmY21D22z59eqDNN6XgcZRcFazgIkiacbnndJ9v+SEYbnQHnzF9+EsPAvuFH BDv/BA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=oB3/TGxmOOdFWQnlTEr8a6OPwANY372WU/BFGdzA4 /g=; b=Pk4YcZtC/8XNTmej6gPJp2xAtRrls0Bx12n8ebqN5CuKJRm7cNeXX71zQ MBs3IQdiOK+M84yLNbcUl/DdKetVVtFRzpqrmx3EsJL79oGb8f2qpOGKOvcEnNy8 hUTvLzI/rtlIixGvIEiU/kk+3pBzhcI9u3xXcI/q9BGEpr/tTK4ravqkvjHM+ySW 6b09Ei9qRe8EyCZTWGHduJp/foHpu5KOXckmsPYhw002JNj1TDUZQrqpGnHp3KyC wLcUjOFDJSF0Z/T0aZ04ZUUzgOIdbdz3395gkjMpyI7k/2RU1WYPXnH7NvQZEHD7 MO4rO7QJQjWX97O6HwlQQf2djiNew== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrheeggdduvddtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgr rhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 64670328005E; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 15:59:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Joyce Kong Cc: stephen@networkplumber.org, david.marchand@redhat.com, mb@smartsharesystems.com, jerinj@marvell.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com, ravi1.kumar@amd.com, rmody@marvell.com, shshaikh@marvell.com, xuanziyang2@huawei.com, cloud.wangxiaoyun@huawei.com, zhouguoyang@huawei.com, honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com, gavin.hu@arm.com, phil.yang@arm.com, dev@dpdk.org, nd@arm.com Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 21:59:29 +0200 Message-ID: <11850699.hYdu0Ggh8K@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20200424032159.992-2-joyce.kong@arm.com> References: <20200424032159.992-1-joyce.kong@arm.com> <20200424032159.992-2-joyce.kong@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 1/6] lib/eal: implement the family of common bit operation APIs X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 24/04/2020 05:21, Joyce Kong: > Bitwise operation APIs are defined and used in a lot of PMDs, > which caused a huge code duplication. To reduce duplication, > this patch consolidates them into a common API family. [...] > +rte_get_bit32_relaxed(unsigned int nr, volatile uint32_t *addr) > +rte_set_bit32_relaxed(unsigned int nr, volatile uint32_t *addr) > +rte_clear_bit32_relaxed(unsigned int nr, volatile uint32_t *addr) > +rte_test_and_set_bit32_relaxed(unsigned int nr, volatile uint32_t *addr) > +rte_test_and_clear_bit32_relaxed(unsigned int nr, volatile uint32_t *addr) > +rte_get_bit64_relaxed(unsigned int nr, volatile uint64_t *addr) > +rte_set_bit64_relaxed(unsigned int nr, volatile uint64_t *addr) > +rte_clear_bit64_relaxed(unsigned int nr, volatile uint64_t *addr) > +rte_test_and_set_bit64_relaxed(unsigned int nr, volatile uint64_t *addr) > +rte_test_and_clear_bit64_relaxed(unsigned int nr, volatile uint64_t *addr) Sorry, I have one more naming concern with this series. I prefer a common namespace for bit operations. Would you be OK to prefix all function names with rte_bit_relaxed_?