From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA0FA045E for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 22:08:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6445375B; Thu, 30 May 2019 22:08:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE092B9A for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 22:08:29 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 May 2019 13:08:28 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.251.92.22]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 30 May 2019 13:08:25 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 30 May 2019 21:08:24 +0100 Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 21:08:24 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: David Marchand Cc: Thomas Monjalon , Stephen Hemminger , dev , Kevin Traynor , Neil Horman , Luca Boccassi Message-ID: <20190530200824.GA1301@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20190408182510.16078-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <4005890.T4jVSnTFc5@xps> <20190530101118.GA1107@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <7160338.BtPRTxGgPp@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/5] eal: add lcore accessors 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 07:00:36PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:39 PM Thomas Monjalon > <[1]thomas@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 < > > > > [2]stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 30 May 2019 00:46:30 +0200 > > > > > Thomas Monjalon <[3]thomas@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 23/05/2019 15:58, David Marchand: > > > > > > > From: Stephen Hemminger <[4]stephen@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. > -- Yes, agreed. Any existing APIs that were already present as static inlines can go straight to stable when added to the .map file. /Bruce