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 C39E7A057B; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:45:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15590375B; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:45:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com (new4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.230]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89BEC375B for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:45:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E012E58085C; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 05:45:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 01 Apr 2020 05:45:29 -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=mesmtp; bh=5L5rA5XpgeSSgNRKsPAuELbgs0IRM6qzlV42MnqcLlE=; b=JZdWVaTnAFHx iYrP40tCy5PnkF68BQyvHyAxOLxHkFxmxcmwLDHSr0b5Vttw0NaWmTtY+5JGine0 ot1ebcQzrv2uhr2nynCLii6eERsSzZ+gkEgDIDRySf4LCXe0eXeH58CIRn/xozN4 U27rnAnT6fdrXjPZKQkf/gDC9PDmNVI= 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=5L5rA5XpgeSSgNRKsPAuELbgs0IRM6qzlV42MnqcL lE=; b=rcLjY1Ry372tfuvOfQGC74CEtdxJTn8FgA+qwgZ+Sjzc3AbdbB1SeRafe MAfdT3txZNU7Hv+VK+gDZzx07/DGyfAAmpKsq7ldyWSgdExee5SKQVU+wvgerLJW eld2958h0tbwFOE7QLM6cFrTpimsiSUE3ia22odLciEnsfLk0WMK7wrOPuf+55Zi VlwLwwWY/uN4s7K585HzaSjG7MshwP3fENJ8BmbuW/pFGDIDKY0BD+zbrbUV3D/v B9gaVKgzD6sMZw7oN2k/hG6DYVGufv6zjNV+WV5Y4MXNJrEe+qyY8h5PjHuf93tj /+HbgxZdFFTAIgsNX37KFr76oT7Xw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrtddvgddvtdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghr rghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth 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 00AAA306CC82; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 05:45:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Joyce Kong , Gavin Hu 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 , Phil Yang , nd , "dev@dpdk.org" , nd Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 11:45:25 +0200 Message-ID: <1989157.0RtB02Ng89@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20200309095410.28983-1-joyce.kong@arm.com> <1650352.esFFXGZ24q@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/6] lib/eal: implement the family of PMD 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" 01/04/2020 10:27, Gavin Hu: > Hi Thomas, > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > > > Hi, > > > > 09/03/2020 10:54, Joyce Kong: > > > Bitwise operation APIs are defined and used in a lot of PMDs, > > > which caused a huge code duplication. > > > > Statistics of the series: 653 insertions(+), 326 deletions(-) > > I would not say it is a huge duplication. > We did not include all PMDs, just a few for piloting and seeking opinions. > It is a huge duplication when counting all the PMDs. > > > > > To reduce duplication, > > > this patch consolidates them into a common API family. > > [...] > > > +PMD Bitops > > > +M: Joyce Kong > > > +F: lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_pmd_bitops.h > > > > Why is it called PMD bitops and not simply bitops? > > The scope of these APIs are decreased to PMD use only, for libraries/applications, it is recommended to use C11 directly as there are complications of more ordering models involved. OK, but PMD means nothing, except this is where it is used *now*. Please describe and name the API with memory ordering words.