On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 06:16:20PM -0700, Ravi Kerur wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Don Provan <dprovan at bivio.net> wrote: > > > I probably shouldn't stick my nose into this, but I can't help myself. > > > > An experienced programmer will tend to ignore the documentation for > > a routine named "blahblah_memcmp" and just assume it functions like > > memcmp. Whether or not there's currently a use case in DPDK is > > completely irrelevant because as soon as there *is* a use case, some > > poor DPDK developer will try to use rte_memcmp for that and may or > > may not have a test case that reveals their mistake. > > > > In general I agree with you. However, comparison is a hit(equal) or > miss(unequal) is generally the case in networking. I haven't seen cases > where "less than" or "greater than" has mattered. > > Agreed that == and != are the common operations. However, if that is what is returned from the function - and given other limitations on parameter sizes - I agree with previous posters that this function needs to have a different name to rte_memcmp so as to avoid confusion.
/Bruce