From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] bitmap: deprecate and rename rte_bsf64
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 23:44:50 +0100
Message-ID: <10867117.EFarvljQJ7@xps>
References: <6279ff04d7d477d3c2c076c643a0093aecb654c6.1542801670.git.anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
 <a9f793b3377ab7b50b0f0636362249c1f7758507.1542801670.git.anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258010CEBB04A@IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
 Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>, "Mcnamara,
 John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>, "Kovacevic,
 Marko" <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>, "Dumitrescu,
 Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>, "Singh,
 Jasvinder" <jasvinder.singh@intel.com>, "Yigit,
 Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, "Richardson,
 Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A85A1B47E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 23:44:54 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258010CEBB04A@IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

22/11/2018 19:56, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > Rename rte_bsf64 to rte_bsf64_safe (this is a "safe" version in
> > that it prevents undefined behavior by checking if incoming
> > parameter is zero) and move it to common header.
> 
> Probably a stupid one: why to rename?
> Why just not fix rte_bsf64 to make it work with zero value,
> and keep the same function name?

Because there are different parameters and returned value
than rte_bsf32.
In the next release, we will have rte_bsf64 function,
behaving as rte_bsf32.
This is explained in the deprecation notice.

[...]
> > +static inline int
> > +rte_bsf64_safe(uint64_t v, uint32_t *pos)