02/04/2019 17:26, Stephen Hemminger: > On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 12:14:44 +0100 > Thomas Monjalon <tho...@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 <step...@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
