Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/5] eal: add lcore accessors

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

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 <
> > > stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, 30 May 2019 00:46:30 +0200
> > > > Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 23/05/2019 15:58, David Marchand:
> > > > > > From: Stephen Hemminger <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.