> From: Tyler Retzlaff [mailto:roret...@linux.microsoft.com] > Sent: Thursday, 5 January 2023 21.58 > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:27:12AM -0800, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:23:49AM -0800, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: > > > > > oh! not a problem. i'm very keen to catch any mistakes, thought > i had > > > > > missed something. > > > > > > > > I think we should move all bit-related functions together. > > > > Please could you add another patch to your series > > > > moving "ms1b"/"bsf"/"fls" functions in this file? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > okay, so there is already a rte_bitops.h. i guess everything should > go > > > there including the leading/trailing count functions instead of > adding a > > > new header. > > > > > > i'll introduce a new patch to the series that gathers the existing > > > functions into rte_bitops.h and place the new functions there too. > > > > > > thanks > > > > just as a further follow up, you do understand that this is > technically > > an api break? > > > > moving functions from rte_common.h to rte_bitops.h will make > translation > > units that included only rte_common.h but used these functions will > > fail to compile without being updated to include rte_bitops.h. > > > > anyway, i'll submit v3 with this change anyway. > > so when attempting to do this it became immediately obvious that moving > just the bit op functions out is going to create a circular dependency > between rte_common.h, rte_bitops.h > > once the bit ops are moved out of common there are still other inline > functions that remain in comman that require bringing bitops back in, > but bitops depends on common. > > my compromise will be to break log2 and pow2 inline functions into > their > own files to break the cycle (common no longer depends on bitops). i'll > submit patches for this but it ends up touching a lot more of the > tree to add back includes for log/pow inline use. > > alternatively i can just not move the remaining bit manipulation > functions, let me know which is preferred.
It seems that no perfect solution exists, so we will have to live with a compromise. Here is another proposal for a compromise, for yours and Thomas's consideration: I noticed that rte_bitops.h is mainly for setting/getting bits, used for accessing hardware. Your functions are mathematical functions, and so are the similar functions in rte_common.h (which is why it makes sense to keep them together with yours). If we cannot clean up rte_common.h by moving them out, perhaps we should accept the current situation (until we find a way to move them out) and just add your mathematical functions where the existing mathematical functions reside, i.e. in rte_common.h. This proposal only makes the existing mess slightly larger; it doesn't create a new kind of mess. -Morten
