From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EFA85699 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 16:04:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Mar 2015 08:04:49 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,409,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="665903895" Received: from irsmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.99]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Mar 2015 08:04:46 -0700 Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.247]) by IRSMSX107.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.10.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:04:45 +0000 From: "Mcnamara, John" To: Neil Horman Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix Wbad-function-cast warning Thread-Index: AQHQX+iTKr6E4dnfdEKeRZXYVN2ae50fF8kAgAAaqyA= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:04:45 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1426510564-19164-1-git-send-email-john.mcnamara@intel.com> <20150316131916.GC16238@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> In-Reply-To: <20150316131916.GC16238@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix Wbad-function-cast warning X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:04:48 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman@tuxdriver.com] > Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 1:19 PM > To: Mcnamara, John > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix Wbad-function-cast warning >=20 >=20 > This looks reasonable, but it rather begs the question as to why we need > rte_align_floor_int in the first place. Theres only one other call site, > and it looks like it could use RTE_PTR_ALIGN_FLOOR just as easily. What > about fixing up the second call site and removing the function to save > some space? Hi Neil, Seems like a good idea. I'll submit a v2. Does rte_align_floor_int() need to be deprecated in some way or is it okay = to just remove it? John