Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 3/3] ethdev: enhance the API for getting burst mode information

["Wang, Haiyue" <haiyue.wang@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 06:46
> To: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.wang@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; arybchenko@solarflare.com; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>;
> jerinjacobk@gmail.com; Ye, Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>; Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@intel.com>;
> Sun, Chenmin <chenmin.sun@intel.com>; Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] ethdev: enhance the API for getting burst mode information
> 
> Thank you for trying to address comments done late.
> 
> 31/10/2019 18:11, Haiyue Wang:
> > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h


> > +#define RTE_ETH_BURST_ALTIVEC       (1ULL << 2)
> > +#define RTE_ETH_BURST_NEON          (1ULL << 3)
> > +#define RTE_ETH_BURST_SSE           (1ULL << 4)
> > +#define RTE_ETH_BURST_AVX2          (1ULL << 5)
> > +#define RTE_ETH_BURST_AVX512        (1ULL << 6)
> 
> Of course, I still believe that giving a special treatment
> to vector instructions is wrong.
> You did not justify why it needs to be defined in bits
> instead of string. I am not asking again because anyway you
> don't really reply. I think you are executing an order you received
> and I don't want to blame you more.
> I suspect a real hidden issue in Intel CPUs that you try to mitigate.
> No need to reply to this comment.
> Anyway I will propose to replace this API in the next release.

Never mind, if this design is truly ugly, drop it all now. I also prefer
to do the best, that's why open source is amazing, thanks! ;-)