Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/3] ixgbe: Cleanups

["Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz@cloudius-systems.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 3:58 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Wodkowski, PawelX; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/3] ixgbe: Cleanups
> 
> 
> 
> On 03/09/15 13:29, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Wodkowski, PawelX
> >> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 11:09 AM
> >> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Vlad Zolotarov; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/3] ixgbe: Cleanups
> >>
> >> On 2015-03-09 11:49, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vlad Zolotarov
> >>>> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:21 AM
> >>>> To: dev@dpdk.org
> >>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/3] ixgbe: Cleanups
> >>>>
> >>>>      - Removed the not needed casting.
> >>>>      - ixgbe_dev_rx_init(): shorten the lines by defining a local alias variable to access
> >>>>                             &dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vlad Zolotarov <vladz@cloudius-systems.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 27 ++++++++++++---------------
> >>>>    1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> >>>> index 72c65df..609b5fd 100644
> >>>> --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> >>>> +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> >>>> @@ -1032,8 +1032,7 @@ ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs(struct igb_rx_queue *rxq)
> >>>>    	int diag, i;
> >>>>
> >>>>    	/* allocate buffers in bulk directly into the S/W ring */
> >>>> -	alloc_idx = (uint16_t)(rxq->rx_free_trigger -
> >>>> -				(rxq->rx_free_thresh - 1));
> >>>> +	alloc_idx = rxq->rx_free_trigger - (rxq->rx_free_thresh - 1);
> >>> I think all these extra casts came in to keep icc 12.* compiling without warnings.
> >>> I am agree that they are unnecessary.
> >>> Though if we still have to support icc 12.* we either need to keep them, or find
> >>> some other way to keep it happy.
> >>> Konstantin
> >>>
> >> What warnings icc 12.* is throwing?
> > Try and see :)
> >
> >> Only warning I can think of here is
> >> signed -> unsigned implicit cast.
> > If I remember things correctly, it considered result at right side of '=' operator as unsigned int,
> > and then complained that we assign it to smaller size (unsigned short) operand.
> 
> If that's the case - that's a clear compiler bug.

Might be, though if we still have to support it, there is no much choice I am afraid.

> 
> >
> >> Changing '1' to '1U' helps?
> > Don't think so, but you are welcome to try.
> >
> > Konstantin
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Pawel