15/03/2021 20:34, Tyler Retzlaff: > The proposal has resulted from request to review [1] the following > functions where there appeared to be inconsistency in return type > or parameter type selections for the following inline functions. > > rte_bsf32() > rte_bsf32_safe() > rte_bsf64() > rte_bsf64_safe() > rte_fls_u32() > rte_fls_u64() > rte_log2_u32() > rte_log2_u64() > > [1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-March/201590.html > > Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff <roret...@linux.microsoft.com> > --- > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > +* eal: Fix inline function return and parameter types for rte_{bsf,fls} > + inline functions to be consistent. > + Change ``rte_bsf32_safe`` parameter ``v`` from ``uint64_t`` to > ``uint32_t``. > + Change ``rte_bsf64`` return type to ``uint32_t`` instead of ``int``. > + Change ``rte_fls_u32`` return type to ``uint32_t`` instead of ``int``. > + Change ``rte_fls_u64`` return type to ``uint32_t`` instead of ``int``.
It seems we completely forgot this. How critical is it?
