[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net: introduce big and little endian types

[Wiles, Keith]

> On Dec 8, 2016, at 3:30 AM, Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro at 6wind.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Following previous discussions, I would like to gather requirements for
> v2, currently we have:
> 
> 1. Introduction of new typedefs.
> 2. Modification of network headers.
> 3. Modification of rte_*_to_*() functions.
> 
> Point 1. seems not to be an issue, everyone seems to agree on the fact
> having those types could help to document some parts of the code.

I never stated these new types were useful in any way, I still believe documentation of the code is the better solution then forcing yet another restriction in submitting patches. 

> 
> Point 2. does not cause any ABI change as it is only a documentation
> commit, not sure if anyone disagrees about this.

I guess no ABI change is done, but I feel it should be as the developer now need to adjust his to reflex these new type even if the compiler does not complain.

> 
> Point 3. documentation commit most people are uncomfortable with.

Not sure what this one is stating, but I whole heartily believe documentation of the code is the best way forward.

The main reasons are:
 - We do not need to add yet another type to DPDK to make the patch process even more restrictive.
 - The new types do not add any type of checking for the compiler and the developer can still get it wrong.
- If any common code used in other platform (say Linux kernel driver) we have to include these new types in that environment.
 - Documentation is the best solution IMO to resolve these types of issues and it does not require any new types or code changes in DPDK or developers code.

Sorry, I strongly disagree with this patch in any form expect documentation changes.

> I propose to drop it from v2.
> 
> Any objection to this plan?
> 
> -- 
> Nélio Laranjeiro
> 6WIND

Regards,
Keith