From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B23E37CE5 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:53:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52263219DF; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:53:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=hwufWHdtmiLBBRN cw6bSk8f7gpXq+IRfEX3vN8tQW2c=; b=gnwYPr2WwnGuvZeGK5qhVvmYIiD8WFZ 4q82n0oYp40knNAm99vxitA3I2Ifq4vfSNkXp3GrUCdGnYgnUaKhNdGoqdiMgdjg JbsMmbBBBOMQcWhpUK/+kauc/nAzysLHDb5RukqrWwPAPvWahBmWAKVvOw726IkK NkpilBBHKhy8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=hwufWHdtmiLBBRNcw6bSk8f7gpXq+IRfEX3vN8tQW2c=; b=ALOSS8GR L/1YSQpTbOczpNLlQSvzcJFfCnOKVoF2sNzUis4/i4BfSSUHoWDLK2gB3KF5cuAO yijBMp/CoIuJmN743lDCGStq54nNWGH/g+8Q1XLm6BIArEsfG8HP80uYUyMpfQ+m KkKeUmzwKBIsoVWWlrKmAqd+j/cId41rUuiHGCbHleG/s2WETb/BlSm1Vl3+1p2A S4YI8W5rQa3lK7FoBh2bozuaiBzElPujKC4MQCDUR2m3QbGcVN5UWwI9YNcvvtOc aIMN8ssCYksXP4IjAXMrfeJEm/Z/moDgwkkdjV7FbHBIddttrcvhe8G1+GsDNTbM mG75yFJLYPgBUA== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: e/bpo490TLzKfj/O6K9LBJx2HPHRRL9PqYuv7P7ICZ6K 1505922785 Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 01B932471C; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:53:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Van Haaren, Harry" Cc: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula , dev@dpdk.org Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:53:04 +0200 Message-ID: <1506605.4yxMIA60VI@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <1503501027-11046-1-git-send-email-pbhagavatula@caviumnetworks.com> <20170915173740.GA21540@PBHAGAVATULA-LT> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: added new `rte_lcore_is_service_lcore` API. X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:53:06 -0000 20/09/2017 16:53, Van Haaren, Harry: > From: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula [mailto:pbhagavatula@caviumnetworks.com] > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 05:51:36PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 15/09/2017 16:59, Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula: > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:44:57PM +0000, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > We could also choose to add this function to rte_service.h ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes that is an option, and OK with me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Pavan what do you think of adding it to service.h, implement in .c > > and add > > > > > > to .map? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ROLE_SERVICE/ROLE_RTE defines the role of a lcore so it made sense > > to put > > > > > > it in rte_lcore.h as lcore properties are accessed mostly through this > > header. > > > > > > I'm fine with adding it to service.h as suggested by Harry. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Pavan > > > > > > > > > > *as suggested by Thomas ;) > > > > > > > > > > Initially I thought it made more sense in lcore.h too, however the > > application > > > > > should only require knowing if core X is a service core if it cares about > > > > > services / service-cores, hence I'm fine with rte_service.h too. > > > > > > > > > > -Harry > > > > > > > > > Agreed, will spin up a v2. > > > > > > The most difficult is to find a good name for this function :) > > > > If not rte_lcore_is_service_core then how about rte_lcore_is_role_service? > > But this would need a sibling api rte_lcore_is_role_rte (or a better one) which > > is satisfied by rte_lcore_is_enabled :( > > IMO when role was limited to RTE & OFF rte_lcore_is_enabled fits now with > > new role SERVICE it looks out of place cause even service lcores are > > "enabled". > > Modifying rte_lcore_is_enabled would be a huge task (API change) as it is used > > widely in many places. > > Hey all, > > I've been thinking a little, and adding the "is service core" functionality in the > rte_service_* namespace might be the wrong place. The function name certainly doesn't > roll off the tongue ( rte_service_lcore_has_service_role() ?? ) > > What if we add a new function to rte_lcore.h? The implementation could be in a > new file, rte_lcore.c, to avoid "static inline" in a control-path function. > > In my eyes, this approach is the cleanest as it allows re-use of the same function > for various types, including SERVICE, RTE, OFF etc. > > > /** Probes if the calling core has a specific role. > * @retval 1 If the core has role matching the *role* passed in > * @retval 0 If the core's role does not match *role* passed in > */ > int > rte_lcore_has_role(enum rte_lcore_role_t role); > > > Application code becomes pretty self-documenting: > if (rte_lcore_has_role(ROLE_SERVICE)) { > // do something > } > > Thoughts? -Harry OK, no problem