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 EAB91A00C2; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:50:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802E34069D; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:50:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE57140694 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:50:41 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1661323841; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=OmQNv5KBPUy4hYBS2IPavJYbDuz9sLHptuFNWF+lSW4=; b=UxeWxiUyPxtA+o51J1azJ8ycaHgmXenlNyYkdu1RNW9rvRpVRW6wEgMl2lxZ2Gi1Hi1ABA gVTvz5ge3OEyvYkVWgE8rU0EpR0UiJ0JFGlSS82rdrlbj7NDiPJd6lSo1vKztAN5UjI0kn iHdtw+TzyRREnk75ytmUUc0ZPx40aPM= Received: from mail-lf1-f69.google.com (mail-lf1-f69.google.com [209.85.167.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-398-0Dypax9xNzKPe9YAF4jMzA-1; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 02:50:40 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 0Dypax9xNzKPe9YAF4jMzA-1 Received: by mail-lf1-f69.google.com with SMTP id a18-20020a19ca12000000b00492cd7c3f18so4004842lfg.1 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 23:50:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=OmQNv5KBPUy4hYBS2IPavJYbDuz9sLHptuFNWF+lSW4=; b=XMd0+v7W2cIEoY0wPYI58njGVMe4PwTVggizQg9LQTzsM1cTV26cAcMBEdutaGlIAf TGp1OOqJN+AH/6h5lDLpSV9GzfN2/k10M6jwpkxLm4/b1nK441wr++x1UY0LSXr3UkyJ YuFRXXSjT5d7iqqRnxMOALNK7jLhRR8XLCUR+BWxLDhSDpTOWy+XWTfkLHyf/FXzEV7r uKb4G3+GdNorCOcBcGepXxGKCgKivJPd5HQA+Yg7yD3HXIw8vfIIjbxGaFOQo+q4gVyx QbzawClBxnJcYTHCjnW62wlMukFnGza566vL3fRkdUCGywn8n1ctF8TOJIwlXm3UO6nI rvtg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0T9aDTbL9uTSVIfla8W/81hhlhilrJ25gbb5jhZepDkVEDikCc 9VUyimhcf7CkCj6qZVtnQXdS+USocmQkqXLqvXDAiao2S9H6vh9d090tHoI7OsAy/0O40OntY3X Ub5TSBKIQSFfzGHJ38I0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:19a8:b0:261:e043:3960 with SMTP id bx40-20020a05651c19a800b00261e0433960mr824185ljb.81.1661323838864; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 23:50:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4LpXYZVsq6mOGP29PsijC046uEvSJBUnY8FkfFbalwugGxYHCJlYMbenL0lA0vnGb5051PqFdkm+SqMVsHFZU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:19a8:b0:261:e043:3960 with SMTP id bx40-20020a05651c19a800b00261e0433960mr824165ljb.81.1661323838656; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 23:50:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220628144643.1213026-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20220728152640.547725-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20220728152640.547725-9-david.marchand@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:50:27 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC v3 08/26] dev: move unrelated macros from header To: Bruce Richardson , techboard@dpdk.org Cc: dev , Fan Zhang , Ashish Gupta , Qiming Yang , Wenjun Wu , Shijith Thotton , Srisivasubramanian Srinivasan , Chengwen Feng , Kevin Laatz , Thomas Monjalon , Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko , Olivier Matz , Ori Kam , Akhil Goyal , Maxime Coquelin , Chenbo Xia X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:22 PM David Marchand wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 11:59 AM Bruce Richardson > wrote: > > > > Personally, I really don't like these macros at all. I think having the > > > > check explicitly in the code would be far more readable, and would only be > > > > one line of code longer than the macro call. Is there some private header > > > > file we could move these to instead of rte_common.h so we can drop their > > > > use in future if we decide to? > > > > > > I don't like them either. > > > Not sure where to put them though... > > > > > > My "grep-all" shows no user in the projects consuming DPDK I track. > > > We could mark those macros deprecated, fix our code and drop them later. > > > > > +1 to that. > > Can they be marked as deprecated as part of the move perhaps (assuming we > > get agreement to kill them?) Let's see if techboard members have an opinion. > > Yes. > I'll wait for others to chime in, which means this will wait for after > my days off :-). -- David Marchand