Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] add thread lifetime and attributes API

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

06/10/2022 17:10, Tyler Retzlaff:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 03:36:12PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 05/10/2022 18:34, Tyler Retzlaff:
> > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 09:11:26AM -0700, Tyler Retzlaff wrote:
> > > > > Newly added code can go to eal_common_thread.c rather than introduce a
> > > > > new common/rte_thread.c file (or is there a rationale for this?).
> > > > 
> > > > i will make this change in the next revision. if anyone does object i
> > > > hope they will do so quickly.
> > > 
> > > looking at this more closely i'm going to back away from making the
> > > adjustment here. if Thomas and/or Dmitry could comment it would be
> > > appreciated.
> > > 
> > > it appears that functions placed in eal_common_xxx files are consumed
> > > internally by the eal where rte_xxx files are functions that are exposed
> > > through public api.
> > 
> > It is not so clear.
> > There is already eal_common_thread.c which implements the same kind of functions,
> > so I think you should move your new functions here.
> > 
> > > since these additions are public api it seems they should remain in
> > > rte_thread.c
> > 
> > Let's not have 2 .c files for the same purpose in the same directory.
> 
> just as another point there seem to be several other rte_xxx.c files
> here can we clarify why they were not subject to the same requirement?
> as a follow on does it mean that the code in those files should also be
> moved to eal_common_xxx files?

That's just history.

> please let me know if the justification is not the same i'll move the
> functions to the eal_common file as requested. i just want to make sure
> it is being done for the consistent/correct reason.

Some file names are not correct, we could rename them.

I think David is already doing the last minor changes on this series
while merging, so no need to do anything on your side.