[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       dpdk-dev
Subject:    [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 7/8] ethdev: support of multiple sizes of redirection table
From:       thomas.monjalon () 6wind ! com (Thomas Monjalon)
Date:       2014-10-31 8:46:25
Message-ID: 1805380.mAoYbZuahn () xps13
[Download RAW message or body]

2014-10-31 01:39, Zhang, Helin:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > 2014-10-28 00:37, Zhang, Helin:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > > > 2014-10-22 19:53, Helin Zhang:
> > > > > +#define RTE_BIT_WIDTH_64 (CHAR_BIT * sizeof(uint64_t))
> > > >
> > > > How can it be different of 64?
> > > > Using 64 would be simpler to understand than RTE_BIT_WIDTH_64.
> > > >
> > > > > +	uint8_t reta[RTE_BIT_WIDTH_64]; /**< 64 redirection table entries. */
> > > We always try to use macro in code to replace numeric, this can get the numeric
> > more understandable.
> > 
> > How bit width 64 is more understandable than 64?
> > Especially when you count a number of entries, not a bit width.
> > RETA_ENTRIES_MAX would be more understandable.
> 
> Renaming the macro is needed. I plan to rename it to RTE_RETA_GROUP_SIZE,
> as it is a group of 64 reta entries, but not the maximum number of valid entries.

OK, good.

-- 
Thomas

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]