Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] doc: propose correction rte_{bsf, fls} inline functions type use

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

15/03/2021 20:34, Tyler Retzlaff:
> The proposal has resulted from request to review [1] the following
> functions where there appeared to be inconsistency in return type
> or parameter type selections for the following inline functions.
> 
> rte_bsf32()
> rte_bsf32_safe()
> rte_bsf64()
> rte_bsf64_safe()
> rte_fls_u32()
> rte_fls_u64()
> rte_log2_u32()
> rte_log2_u64()
> 
> [1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-March/201590.html
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
> ---
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +* eal: Fix inline function return and parameter types for rte_{bsf,fls}
> +  inline functions to be consistent.
> +  Change ``rte_bsf32_safe`` parameter ``v`` from ``uint64_t`` to ``uint32_t``.
> +  Change ``rte_bsf64`` return type to  ``uint32_t`` instead of ``int``.
> +  Change ``rte_fls_u32`` return type to ``uint32_t`` instead of ``int``.
> +  Change ``rte_fls_u64`` return type to ``uint32_t`` instead of ``int``.

It seems we completely forgot this.
How critical is it?