13/10/2017 09:31, Ananyev, Konstantin: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > 13/10/2017 03:06, Li, Xiaoyun: > > > Hi > > > Sorry for the late reply. I took AL last 3 days. > > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > > > 05/10/2017 14:33, Xiaoyun Li: > > > > > +/** > > > > > + * Macro for copying unaligned block from one location to another > > > > > +with constant load offset, > > > > > + * 47 bytes leftover maximum, > > > > > + * locations should not overlap. > > > > > + * Requirements: > > > > > + * - Store is aligned > > > > > + * - Load offset is <offset>, which must be immediate value within > > > > > +[1, 15] > > > > > + * - For <src>, make sure <offset> bit backwards & <16 - offset> bit > > > > > +forwards are available for loading > > > > > + * - <dst>, <src>, <len> must be variables > > > > > + * - __m128i <xmm0> ~ <xmm8> must be pre-defined */ #define > > > > > +MOVEUNALIGNED_LEFT47_IMM(dst, src, len, > > > > > > > > Naive question: > > > > Is there a real benefit of using a macro compared to a static inline > > > > function > > > > optimized by a modern compiler? > > > > > > > The macro is in the existing DPDK codes. I didn't touch it. I just change > > > the file name and the function name to rte_memcpy_internal. > > > So I am not clear about if there is real benefit. > > > In my opinion, I think it is the same as static inline function. > > > > > > Do I need to change them to inline function? > > > > In this patch, it appears as a new macro. > > Ah no, it definitely been there before. > All we did here - git mv rte_memcpy.h rte_memcpyu_interlan.h > and then in rte_memcpy_internal.h renamed rte_memcpy() to > rte_memcpy_internal(). > > > If you can, inline function is cleaner for the new one. > > I don't think it will be straightforward - one of the parameters is a > constant value. > My preference would be to keep original rte_memcpy() code intact as much as > we can here > (except probably cosmetic changes - indentation, line length fixing etc.). > After all that patch is for adding architecture function selection at runtime > only. > If we like to improve our rte_memcpy() any furher - NP with that, but let it > be a > separate patch.
OK I am waiting this patch to close RC1 today.
