06/01/2023 02:04, Tyler Retzlaff: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 12:10:45AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote: > > > From: Tyler Retzlaff [mailto:roret...@linux.microsoft.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, 5 January 2023 23.06 > > > > > > doesn't create a new kind of mess. > > > > > > so i fudged around a bit to see if i could get a happy medium. i ended > > > up with this. > > > > > > remove include of rte_debug.h from rte_bitops.h > > > > > > * had to remove the RTE_ASSERT from existing rte_bitops.h functions > > > * this breaks a good piece of the cycle debug -> log -> common -> > > > bitops -> debug > > > * deal breaker? i don't think it was right that we were getting all > > > of log, common just for using bitops anyway. > > > > > > move pow2 functions from rte_common.h -> rte_pow2ops.h > > > * new header includes rte_bitops.h > > > > > > move log2 functions from rte_common.h -> rte_log2ops.h > > > * new header includes rte_bitops.h, rte_pow2ops.h > > > > > > include rte_bitops.h, rte_pow2ops.h and rte_log2ops.h back into > > > rte_common.h > > > > > > * this is done to reduce the impact of compatibility break by > > > continuing to expose the pow2/log2/bitops via rte_common.h > > > > > > so we end up with 3 standalone headers, where the whole tree builds > > > without having to add a pile of includes for the new headers. we can > > > later deprecate the exposure of the inline functions when including > > > rte_common.h > > > > > > * one caveat is that there was some contamination coming in via the > > > removed rte_debug.h where rte_bitops.h was used. so technically > > > a break of api too. > > > > > > objections? > > > > > > if this is no good i'll just fold my new functions into rte_common.h > > > and > > > leave the mess for the next person, though i am trying not to do that. > > > > > > thanks for the discussion. > > > > Here's some long term thinking: EAL has grown into a trashcan where too > > much is thrown in. It should only be a thin shim to abstract the underlying > > hardware and O/S environment. A step in that direction could be splitting > > the current EAL into a true EAL and a Utils library. Not now, but perhaps > > some day in a rosy future. > > > > Your proposal effectively makes rte_common.h even bigger by including > > rte_bitops.h (which was intended for accessing hardware). I am not sure it > > is a step in the right direction. On the other hand, introducing yet > > another header file for bit-mathematical functions is probably worse than > > adding them to rte_bitops.h. > > > > I can't come up with something good myself, but I lean towards simply > > adding your functions to rte_common.h and live with the existing mess. If > > you think your proposal is better, I will not object. I'm only voicing my > > thoughts. > > it's hard when we are starting with something monolithic and trying to > split it. you always end up with these iterative transitions toward what > you want because you have to keep some kind of compat. > > > > > @Thomas may have another perspective on the matter. > > Thomas any last word after this back and forth? This change isn't > necessarily blocking me but is a distraction i'd like to finish/offload.
I think it is better to move all in rte_bitops.h rte_common must have almost zero dependency. If log2 and pow2 are based on bitops operations, it is not a bad fit for rte_bitops.h.
