On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Bruce Richardson < bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 06:16:20PM -0700, Ravi Kerur wrote: > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Don Provan <dprovan at bivio.net> wrote: > > > > > I probably shouldn't stick my nose into this, but I can't help myself. > > > > > > An experienced programmer will tend to ignore the documentation for > > > a routine named "blahblah_memcmp" and just assume it functions like > > > memcmp. Whether or not there's currently a use case in DPDK is > > > completely irrelevant because as soon as there *is* a use case, some > > > poor DPDK developer will try to use rte_memcmp for that and may or > > > may not have a test case that reveals their mistake. > > > > > > > In general I agree with you. However, comparison is a hit(equal) or > > miss(unequal) is generally the case in networking. I haven't seen cases > > where "less than" or "greater than" has mattered. > > > > > Agreed that == and != are the common operations. However, if that is what > is returned from the function - and given other limitations on parameter > sizes - > I agree with previous posters that this function needs to have a different > name > to rte_memcmp so as to avoid confusion. > I will be implementing complete memcmp itself, so probably I will retain same name. > > /Bruce > >
