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. -- Thomas
