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 70658A045E for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 15:39:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C8905680; Thu, 30 May 2019 15:39:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 340934CA6 for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 15:39:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EAF5220FD; Thu, 30 May 2019 09:39:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 30 May 2019 09:39:08 -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=QLpS3ftXV55PRDz5Z5IW2/3G1TO6WP2OMbLGhjskdwY=; b=eBciSk9whSCA eHIPg8IBU0mwD0E4qKKTGR0XcNKyvUm6B2T4KzRUI8FmSsHaiLQFbSwv8WqNNfw6 bh0VU1cdm4jcrRmG3hetvI2RvtF3m5qcPErhalW6O0dSePXA3nz4majXW6b31cHQ +UssLdtMLACgK8oEts6wIoAiKq3xLeE= 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=QLpS3ftXV55PRDz5Z5IW2/3G1TO6WP2OMbLGhjskd wY=; b=hhb4hxA/ua3RU6WH9IOHuhSWrFuu5tKzVSkH7fwZ5OZ4fZ90v3jhezcrM 4Q62A5F+HwZIJ54GgqM4W/252WBgFy3eEQkdwFvXlsOY2C3YHdXtbeK4qiXn6ksG Q2ckey+sDvER9ruhX7p6LiiAx4pBqwT8rt1vIlJgOKmYM0bGr0251be8k1JzhJlq FTbnuT9hweayhLUI68WVOYs/Wx/JQZTnjvapZHrJD5IAXE86rHDNki9C4zprOPCr y7yKRd7ACZOwxW97iqrus69RTogfmZ35X4wfrZmUJHn6Zgl6ij+bU9rXTpeji4yn yAnX/Wjdax9H2uhrBqOgT5tyiz6Yg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddruddvledgieejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeekuddrudekhedrudeiiedrvddvgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhh ohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (224.166.185.81.rev.sfr.net [81.185.166.224]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6EEFE8005A; Thu, 30 May 2019 09:39:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Bruce Richardson Cc: David Marchand , Stephen Hemminger , dev , Kevin Traynor , Neil Horman , Luca Boccassi Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 15:39:03 +0200 Message-ID: <7160338.BtPRTxGgPp@xps> In-Reply-To: <20190530101118.GA1107@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20190408182510.16078-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <4005890.T4jVSnTFc5@xps> <20190530101118.GA1107@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> 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 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 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? > > > > 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.