Re: [PATCH 2/3] eal: change rte_fls and rte_bsf to return uint32_t

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

05/10/2022 17:15, Tyler Retzlaff:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 11:02:45AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 08/08/2022 23:21, Tyler Retzlaff:
> > > From: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@microsoft.com>
> > > 
> > 
> > You forgot the _safe versions:
> 
> > 
> > --- a/lib/eal/include/rte_common.h
> > +++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_common.h
> > @@ -660,7 +660,7 @@ rte_bsf32(uint32_t v)
> >   * @return
> >   *     Returns 0 if ``v`` was 0, otherwise returns 1.
> >   */
> > -static inline int
> > +static inline uint32_t
> >  rte_bsf32_safe(uint32_t v, uint32_t *pos)
> >  {
> >         if (v == 0)
> > @@ -739,7 +739,7 @@ rte_bsf64(uint64_t v)
> >   * @return
> >   *     Returns 0 if ``v`` was 0, otherwise returns 1.
> >   */
> > -static inline int
> > +static inline uint32_t
> >  rte_bsf64_safe(uint64_t v, uint32_t *pos)
> >  {
> >         if (v == 0)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> the return values from the _safe versions are `int' treated
> like a bool type. they have been left as is to be consistent
> with the rest of dpdk return value types.
> 
> the non-safe version returns were returning actual values
> and not an indication of success or failure.
> 
> they could certainly be changed to C99 fixed width types but
> if they are changed at all perhaps they should be changed to
> _Bool or bool from stdbool.h?
> 
> it looks like this change has been merged already but if you
> would like to make any further changes let me know i'll take
> care of it.

Sorry, it's my mistake, I went too fast.
I'll revert them to int.