From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rte_reciprocal: make arg to
 rte_reciprocal_divide_u64 const
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 08:26:19 -0700
Message-ID: <20190402082619.4ea83500@shemminger-XPS-13-9360>
References: <20190321195910.11140-1-stephen@networkplumber.org>
 <4147107.f6clCcuQYr@xps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, maxime.coquelin@redhat.com
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pg1-f196.google.com (mail-pg1-f196.google.com
 [209.85.215.196]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEB2316B
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  2 Apr 2019 17:26:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pg1-f196.google.com with SMTP id p6so6732831pgh.9
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 02 Apr 2019 08:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4147107.f6clCcuQYr@xps>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 12:14:44 +0100
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:

> 21/03/2019 20:59, Stephen Hemminger:
> > The divisor is not modified here. Doesn't really matter for optimizaton
> > since the function is inline already; but helps with expressing
> > intent.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> > ---
> >  static __rte_always_inline uint64_t
> > -rte_reciprocal_divide_u64(uint64_t a, struct rte_reciprocal_u64 *R)
> > +rte_reciprocal_divide_u64(uint64_t a, const struct rte_reciprocal_u64 *R)  
> 
> Why not doing the same change for rte_reciprocal_divide()?
It doesn't make sense for rte_reciprocal_divide since rte_reciprocal_divide
is call by value (ie doesn't take a pointer).


> Should we advertise such API change?

No. Since constant is always less intrusive than previous version
all cases will work the same.