From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rte_reciprocal: make arg to
	rte_reciprocal_divide_u64 const
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 18:05:52 +0200
Message-ID: <5398787.mRi1Xo3jJQ@xps>
References: <20190321195910.11140-1-stephen@networkplumber.org>
 <4147107.f6clCcuQYr@xps> <20190402082619.4ea83500@shemminger-XPS-13-9360>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, maxime.coquelin@redhat.com
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC6454C8F
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  2 Apr 2019 18:05:55 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20190402082619.4ea83500@shemminger-XPS-13-9360>
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>

02/04/2019 17:26, Stephen Hemminger:
> 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).

Oh, you're right.

> > Should we advertise such API change?
> 
> No. Since constant is always less intrusive than previous version
> all cases will work the same.

Yes OK