Re: [PATCH 1/1] lpm: add a scalar version of lookupx4 function

["Medvedkin, Vladimir" <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>]

Hi Stanislaw,

On 27/05/2022 12:16, Stanisław Kardach wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 6:28 PM Stanisław Kardach <kda@semihalf.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> That said I wonder why do we have different const requirements for
>> rte_lpm_lookup() and rte_lpm_lookupx4():
>>    static inline int rte_lpm_lookup(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip,
>> uint32_t *next_hop)
>>    static inline void rte_lpm_lookupx4(const struct rte_lpm *lpm, xmm_t
>> ip, uint32_t hop[4], uint32_t defv);
>> I think both should be const.
>>
> To re-iterate the question, should I also post a patch for changing
> rte_lpm_lookup() to add "const" to "struct rte_lpm *lpm" argument?
> rte_lpm_lookup_bulk_func() and rte_lpm_lookupx4() already take lpm as
> const.
> I'm pushing because otherwise I get a const discard warning in the
> scalar version of rte_lpm_lookupx4() utilizing rte_lpm_lookup().

Since these are inline functions, there will be no problems with the 
ABI/API, so please add const to the *lpm argument.

Thanks!

> 
> Best Regards,
> Stanislaw Kardach

-- 
Regards,
Vladimir