RE: rte_lcore_has_role() return value

[Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>]

My bad, I got it confused with lcore topology patches.

I will look into this.

Thanks,
Pavan.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2025 7:32 PM
> To: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>; Varghese, Vipin
> <vipin.varghese@amd.com>
> Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>
> Subject: RE: rte_lcore_has_role() return value
> 
> Hi Morten,
> 
> Looks like this is meant for Vipin.
> 
> +Vipin
> 
> Thanks,
> Pavan.
> 
> > Pavan,
> >
> > The rte_lcore_has_role() documentation says it returns bool.
> >
> > Its implementation returns a true value (-1) if given a non-compliant
> lcore_id,
> > e.g. LCORE_ID_ANY.
> >
> > I think it should behave like rte_lcore_is_enabled(), i.e. return false if given a
> > non-compliant lcore_id, e.g. LCORE_ID_ANY.
> >
> > Use case:
> > A control thread in an application might or might not register itself, and the
> > registration might not succeed.
> >
> > At exit of this control thread, it should unregister itself if registered.
> >
> > Fixing rte_lcore_has_role() as suggested would simplify the application from
> > this:
> >
> > 	if (rte_lcore_id() != LCORE_ID_ANY &&
> > 			rte_eal_lcore_role(rte_lcore_id()) == ROLE_NON_EAL)
> > 		rte_thread_unregister();
> >
> > To this:
> >
> > 	if (rte_lcore_has_role(rte_lcore_id(), ROLE_NON_EAL))
> > 		rte_thread_unregister();
> >
> > -Morten