[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/6] implement common rte bit operation APIs in PMDs

[Jerin Jacob]

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 3:25 PM Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)
<Gavin.Hu at arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 12:43 AM
> > To: Joyce Kong (Arm Technology China) <Joyce.Kong at arm.com>
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; nd <nd at arm.com>; jerinj at marvell.com;
> > stephen at networkplumber.org; mb at smartsharesystems.com; Honnappa
> > Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>; Gavin Hu (Arm Technology
> > China) <Gavin.Hu at arm.com>; ravi1.kumar at amd.com; rmody at marvell.com;
> > shshaikh at marvell.com; xuanziyang2 at huawei.com;
> > cloud.wangxiaoyun at huawei.com; zhouguoyang at huawei.com;
> > adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/6] implement common rte bit operation
> > APIs in PMDs
> >
> > 23/10/2019 04:54, Joyce Kong:
> > > There are a lot functions of bit operations scattered in PMDs,
> > > consolidate them into a common API family and applied in different
> > > PMDs to reduce code duplication.
> >
> > Please, could you look at what Adrien did in the Mellanox PMD?
> >
> > http://code.dpdk.org/dpdk/latest/source/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_utils.h#L28
> The code has less duplication, but it requires a less natural declaration of variables
> http://code.dpdk.org/dpdk/latest/source/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.h#L607
> Should we take this way?


IMO, We need to consider the MACRO based scheme only as of the last resort.


> /Gavin
> >
> >
>