On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 08:56:41AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 10:29:42PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2017-01-12 14:47, Jerin Jacob:
> > > +#define rte_read8_relaxed(addr) \
> > > + ({ uint8_t __v = *(const volatile uint8_t *)addr; __v; })
> >
> > Why do you prefer a macro over an inline function?
>
> In this case, I thought of avoiding any compiler behavior changes when
> adding the new EAL APIs. Earlier, drivers were using direct pointer
> dereference in code, I thought of using the macro to just substitute that to
> avoid
> any performance regression due to this change for easy patchset acceptance.
>
> IMO, One line macros are OK and for this specific case Linux also uses
> readl/writel as macros.
>
> Having said that, If you think it needs to be changed to "static inline", I
> am fine with that. Let me know.
>
My preference too is to go with static inline functions over macros
whenever possible.
/Bruce
> > It won't provide the same "debuggability".
