From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rte_reciprocal: make arg to
	rte_reciprocal_divide_u64 const
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 12:14:44 +0100
Message-ID: <4147107.f6clCcuQYr@xps>
References: <20190321195910.11140-1-stephen@networkplumber.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, maxime.coquelin@redhat.com
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A7D5B26
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 12:14:47 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <20190321195910.11140-1-stephen@networkplumber.org>
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>

21/03/2019 20:59, Stephen Hemminger:
> The divisor is not modified here. Doesn't really matter for optimizaton
> since the function is inline already; but helps with expressing
> intent.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> ---
>  static __rte_always_inline uint64_t
> -rte_reciprocal_divide_u64(uint64_t a, struct rte_reciprocal_u64 *R)
> +rte_reciprocal_divide_u64(uint64_t a, const struct rte_reciprocal_u64 *R)

Why not doing the same change for rte_reciprocal_divide()?

Should we advertise such API change?