> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org] > Sent: Wednesday, 1 June 2022 00.46 > > On Mon, 23 May 2022 16:23:46 +0200 > Mattias Rönnblom <mattias.ronnb...@ericsson.com> wrote: > > > +/** > > + * The RTE seqcount type. > > + */ > > +typedef struct { > > + uint32_t sn; /**< A sequence number for the protected data. */ > > +} rte_seqcount_t; > > Don't need structure for only one element. > > typedef uint32_t rte_seqcount_t;
Agree. The rte_seqcount_t type is not going to evolve in any way, so it should be safe not wrapping it into a structure. > + if (unlikely(begin_sn != end_sn)) > + return true; > + > + return false; > > Prefer to avoid conditional if possible (compiler will optimize it as): > > return begin_sn == end_sn; Typo: return begin_sn != end_sn; Please keep the unlikely() hint, which could also be added to Stephen's variant. Considering the comments in the source code related to this comparison, Mattias' version seems more readable. And I suppose the compiler is able to generate optimized code for both.
