> From: David Marchand [mailto:david.march...@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 16 October 2024 17.37 > > 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.
Great idea. > > Do you prefer I respin with this? No need. Instead, create a ticket in Bugzilla so RTE_VERIFY(false) goes in everywhere there is dummy code, not just here. > > > -- > David Marchand
