<snip> > > > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 01/10] eal: introduce macro for bit > > definition > > > > > > There are several drivers which duplicate bit generation macro. > > > Introduce a generic bit macros so that such drivers avoid redefining > > same in > > > multiple drivers. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <pa...@mellanox.com> > > > Acked-by: Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> > > > Acked-by: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com> > > > --- > > > Changelog: > > > v4->v5: > > > - Addressed comments from Morten Brørup > > > - Renamed newly added macro to RTE_BIT64 > > > - Added doxygen comment section for the macro > > > v1->v2: > > > - Addressed comments from Thomas and Gaten. > > > - Avoided new file, added macro to rte_bitops.h > > > --- > > > lib/librte_eal/include/rte_bitops.h | 8 ++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_bitops.h > > > b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_bitops.h > > > index 740927f3b..ca46a110f 100644 > > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_bitops.h > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_bitops.h > > > @@ -17,6 +17,14 @@ > > > #include <rte_debug.h> > > > #include <rte_compat.h> > > > > > > +/** > > > + * Get the uint64_t value for a specified bit set. > > > + * > > > + * @param nr > > > + * The bit number in range of 0 to 63. > > > + */ > > > +#define RTE_BIT64(nr) (UINT64_C(1) << (nr)) > > In general, the macros have been avoided in this file. Suggest > > changing this to an inline function. > > That has been discussed already, and rejected for good reasons: > http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/AM0PR05MB4866823B0170B90F679A2765D1640@ > AM0PR05MB4866.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com/ Thank you for the link. In this patch series, I see the macro being used in enum initialization (7/10 in v11) as well as in functions (8/10 in v11). Does it make sense to introduce use inline functions and use the inline functions for 8/10? If we do this, we should document in rte_bitops.h that inline functions should be used wherever possible.
> > > Also, this file has uses of this macro, it would be good to replace > > them with the new inline function. > > Makes sense. > And for consistency, it would require adding an RTE_BIT32() macro too.
