[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/7] eal: use different constructor priorities for initcalls

Jan Blunck jblunck at infradead.org
Wed Feb 15 16:05:11 CET 2017


On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 February 2017 03:32 PM, Jan Blunck wrote:
>>
>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h
>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h
>> @@ -258,8 +258,16 @@ static inline int rte_gettid(void)
>>         return RTE_PER_LCORE(_thread_id);
>>  }
>>
>> -#define RTE_INIT(func) \
>> -static void __attribute__((constructor, used)) func(void)
>> +#define RTE_EAL_INIT(func) \
>> +static void __attribute__((constructor(101), used)) func(void)
>> +
>> +#define RTE_POST_EAL_INIT(func) \
>> +static void __attribute__((constructor(102), used)) func(void)
>> +
>> +#define RTE_DEV_INIT(func) \
>> +static void __attribute__((constructor(103), used)) func(void)
>
>
> Shouldn't we simply allow this priority to be default to allow for some
> priority space between buses and default init?
>

The absolute numbers are not that important. We can always adjust
them. Important is the relative order. If you have a use-case for
something that needs to be initialized before the devices but can't
get initialized with the eal/post-eal then please speak up.


More information about the dev mailing list