[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] drivers/net: do not redefine bool

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 9/24/2018 5:59 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 24/09/2018 17:06, Ferruh Yigit:
>> On 9/20/2018 1:18 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> -#define false                         FALSE
>>> -#define true                          TRUE
>>
>> TRUE and FALSE also defined in this patch, can we remove them too?
> 
> I don't see the need to remove TRUE and FALSE.
> The base drivers use them on other platforms, and it is convenient to not
> change the base drivers.

Not needed, but previously it was only TRUE & FALSE, and true & false was define
to them.

Now there are TRUE & FALSE from header files and true & false from stdbool and
these pairs used interchangeably, I thought it can better to unify the usage to
stdbool ones.

> 
> [...]
>>>  static int
>>>  ixgbevf_check_link(struct ixgbe_hw *hw, ixgbe_link_speed *speed,
>>> -		   int *link_up, int wait_to_complete)
>>> +		   bool *link_up, int wait_to_complete)
>>
>> Also need to change "wait_to_complete" to bool because below changes start
>> sending bool type to this function.
> 
> [...]
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
>>> @@ -2025,7 +2025,7 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts,
>>>  		struct ixgbe_rx_entry *next_rxe = NULL;
>>>  		struct rte_mbuf *first_seg;
>>>  		struct rte_mbuf *rxm;
>>> -		struct rte_mbuf *nmb;
>>> +		struct rte_mbuf *nmb = NULL;
>>
>> This change is unrelated. Can we separate this one?
> 
> Yes it looks unrelated but it becomes necessary when including stdbool.h.
> I don't know the root cause, but yes, it may deserve a separate commit.
> Maybe an ixgbe maintainer can take care of it?

Why becomes necessary? Does it give a build warning etc?
My concern is this is in data path, one extra assignment, it would be better to
confirm it is really needed.