[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/5] eal: add lcore accessors

David Marchand david.marchand at redhat.com
Thu May 30 19:00:36 CEST 2019


On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:39 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net> wrote:

> 30/05/2019 12:11, Bruce Richardson:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 09:40:08AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 30/05/2019 09:31, David Marchand:
> > > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:51 AM Stephen Hemminger <
> > > > stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 30 May 2019 00:46:30 +0200
> > > > > Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 23/05/2019 15:58, David Marchand:
> > > > > > > From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The fields of the internal EAL core configuration are currently
> > > > > > > laid bare as part of the API. This is not good practice and
> limits
> > > > > > > fixing issues with layout and sizes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Make new accessor functions for the fields used by current
> drivers
> > > > > > > and examples.
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > +DPDK_19.08 {
> > > > > > > +   global:
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +   rte_lcore_cpuset;
> > > > > > > +   rte_lcore_index;
> > > > > > > +   rte_lcore_to_cpu_id;
> > > > > > > +   rte_lcore_to_socket_id;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +} DPDK_19.05;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >  EXPERIMENTAL {
> > > > > > >     global:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just to make sure, are we OK to introduce these functions
> > > > > > as non-experimental?
> > > > >
> > > > > They were in previous releases as inlines this patch converts them
> > > > > to real functions.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Well, yes and no.
> > > >
> > > > rte_lcore_index and rte_lcore_to_socket_id already existed, so
> making them
> > > > part of the ABI is fine for me.
> > > >
> > > > rte_lcore_to_cpu_id is new but seems quite safe in how it can be
> used,
> > > > adding it to the ABI is ok for me.
> > >
> > > It is used by DPAA and some test.
> > > I guess adding as experimental is fine too?
> > > I'm fine with both options, I'm just trying to apply the policy
> > > we agreed on. Does this case deserve an exception?
> > >
> >
> > While it may be a good candidate, I'm not sure how much making an
> exception
> > for it really matters. I'd be tempted to just mark it experimental and
> then
> > have it stable for the 19.11 release. What do we really lose by waiting a
> > release to stabilize it?
>
> I would agree Bruce.
> If no more comment, I will wait for a v5 of this series.
>

I agree that there is no reason we make an exception for those 2 new ones.

But to me the existing rte_lcore_index and rte_lcore_to_socket_id must be
marked as stable.
This is to avoid breaking existing users that did not set
ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API.

I will prepare a v5 later.


-- 
David Marchand


More information about the dev mailing list