On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 4:14 PM Mattias Rönnblom <hof...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>
> On 2024-10-16 13:38, David Marchand wrote:
> > For a reason similar to the change on bitops header, hide bitset
> > implementation relying on experimental API.
> >
> > Fixes: 99a1197647d8 ("eal: add bitset type")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>
> > Acked-by: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com>
> > ---
> > lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h | 123 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 123 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h b/lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h
> > index 74c643a72a..8ae8425fc2 100644
> > --- a/lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h
> > +++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h
> > @@ -255,7 +255,13 @@ __rte_experimental
> > static inline bool
> > rte_bitset_test(const uint64_t *bitset, size_t bit_num)
> > {
> > +#ifdef ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API
> > return __RTE_BITSET_DELEGATE(rte_bit_test, bitset, bit_num);
> > +#else
> > + RTE_SET_USED(bitset);
> > + RTE_SET_USED(bit_num);
> > + return false;
>
> This is no RTE_VERIFY(0) here, because this is just dummy code, that
> will never be run. Is that correct?
Adding a RTE_VERIFY(false) is an interesting idea.
It is not supposed to be run, indeed.
Do you prefer I respin with this?
--
David Marchand
