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 85194A045E for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 09:40:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EDFB4CA6; Thu, 30 May 2019 09:40:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E8A2C0C for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 09:40:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F2E52217D; Thu, 30 May 2019 03:40:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 30 May 2019 03:40:11 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=IzhOTLzcmofm9k1JNwMCV2iWrR7CrO4VLAur3xaD/Jc=; b=kWqWq6E2FVdS Q/zoI6hGORrmbOF+s4IRFyBIbSpoZ496K7ljJGirRb0C2MUE7CROvJ6moIjqVqtc a/JRwiMniqgunuPWnpECVS4Tu4nxZ5ruRr93vdSUuoDlptBFAbrjOv1Bzlr7xqBu nZDnqwYnDbA+9eIELBXbUs/nmuQIk/o= 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-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=IzhOTLzcmofm9k1JNwMCV2iWrR7CrO4VLAur3xaD/ Jc=; b=S6rnMuFiqHRzfCZHGsUeAv7AmeDcH2vg3+j2vvduAULwWF0atSpAl9oGQ ij2Avwmy681GxtUnd13Us3WP0EhRnTeVlvNuCZ7YINpNNYXqz5bEVnWJL255AHA8 ahmzWNf5OFZ65JiJMaMnwobTbHebKXhYc8LWN592navlHDCETdB/PT0zuZK2b0Di 08EkSU5OZVVA+fDcW4zC47jqV2escU27mIgJRs2VypPbDvKrMpFlqx63ihYJDwU2 kOJkKzFaWuYwRKzx/j7GhYx4ZpOUxv3kcHoYaptfB3/TeYRssYnTG3CNE/RpayRl npZgRrJFSxVlwoi/J+OuNp0hnupGw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddruddvkedguddvudcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc fkphepleefrdeirddugeelrdduudegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (114.149.6.93.rev.sfr.net [93.6.149.114]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8F6AA380083; Thu, 30 May 2019 03:40:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: David Marchand , Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev , Kevin Traynor , Neil Horman , Luca Boccassi , Bruce Richardson Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 09:40:08 +0200 Message-ID: <4005890.T4jVSnTFc5@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20190408182510.16078-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20190529155141.5d773396@hermes.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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" 30/05/2019 09:31, David Marchand: > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:51 AM Stephen Hemminger < > stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 30 May 2019 00:46:30 +0200 > > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 23/05/2019 15:58, David Marchand: > > > > From: Stephen Hemminger > > > > > > > > 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? > rte_lcore_cpuset is new too, and still a bit obscure to me. I am not really > convinced we need it until I understand why dpaa2 and fslmc bus need to > know about this. > I might need more time to look at it, so flag this as experimental sounds > fair to me.