From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: Stanislaw Kardach <kda@semihalf.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>,
dev@dpdk.org, Frank Zhao <Frank.Zhao@starfivetech.com>,
Sam Grove <sam.grove@sifive.com>,
upstream@semihalf.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] lpm: add const to lpm arg of rte_lpm_lookup
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2022 09:43:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2111317.Mh6RI2rZIc@thomas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Ypm4PvKmVvpBy2ff@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
03/06/2022 09:29, Bruce Richardson:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 10:52:25PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 01/06/2022 13:15, Stanislaw Kardach:
> > > All other rte_lpm_lookup* functions take lpm argument as a const. As the
> > > basic rte_lpm_lookup() performs the same function, it should also do
> > > that.
> > >
> > > As this function is inline, no API/ABI change happens.
> >
> > It is an API change and should be noted in the release notes.
> >
> > > static inline int
> > > -rte_lpm_lookup(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip, uint32_t *next_hop)
> > > +rte_lpm_lookup(const struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip, uint32_t *next_hop)
> >
> While I've no particular objection to it appearing in the RN doc, I wonder
> whether it really counts as an API change. I can't see any practical
> difference that this change would make to the end user - no source code
> needs updating for example.
Yes you're right, we can skip the release notes here.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-03 7:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-01 11:15 Stanislaw Kardach
2022-06-01 11:15 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] lpm: add a scalar version of lookupx4 function Stanislaw Kardach
2022-06-01 11:52 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
2022-06-03 9:23 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-06-02 20:52 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] lpm: add const to lpm arg of rte_lpm_lookup Thomas Monjalon
2022-06-03 7:29 ` Bruce Richardson
2022-06-03 7:43 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2111317.Mh6RI2rZIc@thomas \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=Frank.Zhao@starfivetech.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=kda@semihalf.com \
--cc=sam.grove@sifive.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=upstream@semihalf.com \
--cc=vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).