From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D2A3975
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:28:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])
 by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Nov 2014 05:36:45 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,455,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="613732230"
Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.243.20.15])
 by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 2014 05:39:44 -0800
Received: by  (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:39:43 +0025
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:39:43 +0000
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Message-ID: <20141125133943.GB2300@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <1416692622-28886-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
 <1416692622-28886-11-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
 <54744756.4010207@neclab.eu> <4906267.1tRnJm3qQV@xps13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4906267.1tRnJm3qQV@xps13>
Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 10/10] eal: add option --master-lcore
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:28:55 -0000

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 01:45:22PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> 2014-11-25 10:09, Simon Kuenzer:
> > thanks for your work. I have one (minor) comment for this patch that 
> > should be fixed in a later version.
> 
> > > +	/* default master lcore is the first one */
> > > +	if (cfg->master_lcore == 0)
> > > +		cfg->master_lcore = rte_get_next_lcore(-1, 0, 0);
> > > +
> > 
> > Might be confusing if a user specifies --master-lcore 0 and uses a 
> > coremask/corelist where core id 0 is not specified.
> 
> Yes, in this corner case, master-lcore will be adjusted instead of having
> an error.
> 
> > What about setting cfg->master_lcore to (RTE_MAX_LCORE + 1) on 
> > initialization in order to distinguish if a master_lcore got specified 
> > by the user or not?
> 
> Even simpler, I can fix it by introducing a flag master_lcore_parsed and
> do the adjustment only if the option is not parsed.
>
I agree that that sounds like a simpler approach, since we already have flags
for what args are parsed or not.

/Bruce