From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F265A00C2; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 22:34:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D648540697; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 22:34:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from smartserver.smartsharesystems.com (smartserver.smartsharesystems.com [77.243.40.215]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31AE44067C for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 22:34:57 +0100 (CET) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/2] eal: provide leading and trailing zero bit count abstraction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 22:34:55 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D8762B@smartserver.smartshare.dk> In-Reply-To: <20230105205746.GA15559@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 1/2] eal: provide leading and trailing zero bit count abstraction Thread-Index: AdkhSF/COyufHiDnQdu1tvsyuQKLKAAA630g References: <1669241687-18810-1-git-send-email-roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87520@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <20221128172756.GC28869@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> <3140231.5fSG56mABF@thomas> <20230105172349.GC9408@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> <20230105172712.GD9408@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> <20230105205746.GA15559@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Morten_Br=F8rup?= To: "Tyler Retzlaff" , "Thomas Monjalon" Cc: , X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org > From: Tyler Retzlaff [mailto:roretzla@linux.microsoft.com] > Sent: Thursday, 5 January 2023 21.58 >=20 > On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:27:12AM -0800, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:23:49AM -0800, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: > > > > > oh! not a problem. i'm very keen to catch any mistakes, = thought > i had > > > > > missed something. > > > > > > > > I think we should move all bit-related functions together. > > > > Please could you add another patch to your series > > > > moving "ms1b"/"bsf"/"fls" functions in this file? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > okay, so there is already a rte_bitops.h. i guess everything = should > go > > > there including the leading/trailing count functions instead of > adding a > > > new header. > > > > > > i'll introduce a new patch to the series that gathers the existing > > > functions into rte_bitops.h and place the new functions there too. > > > > > > thanks > > > > just as a further follow up, you do understand that this is > technically > > an api break? > > > > moving functions from rte_common.h to rte_bitops.h will make > translation > > units that included only rte_common.h but used these functions will > > fail to compile without being updated to include rte_bitops.h. > > > > anyway, i'll submit v3 with this change anyway. >=20 > so when attempting to do this it became immediately obvious that = moving > just the bit op functions out is going to create a circular dependency > between rte_common.h, rte_bitops.h >=20 > once the bit ops are moved out of common there are still other inline > functions that remain in comman that require bringing bitops back in, > but bitops depends on common. >=20 > my compromise will be to break log2 and pow2 inline functions into > their > own files to break the cycle (common no longer depends on bitops). = i'll > submit patches for this but it ends up touching a lot more of the > tree to add back includes for log/pow inline use. >=20 > alternatively i can just not move the remaining bit manipulation > functions, let me know which is preferred. It seems that no perfect solution exists, so we will have to live with a = compromise. Here is another proposal for a compromise, for yours and = Thomas's consideration: I noticed that rte_bitops.h is mainly for setting/getting bits, used for = accessing hardware. Your functions are mathematical functions, and so are the similar = functions in rte_common.h (which is why it makes sense to keep them = together with yours). If we cannot clean up rte_common.h by moving them = out, perhaps we should accept the current situation (until we find a way = to move them out) and just add your mathematical functions where the = existing mathematical functions reside, i.e. in rte_common.h. This proposal only makes the existing mess slightly larger; it doesn't = create a new kind of mess. -Morten