From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168732BB4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 13:30:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23])
 by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
 21 Feb 2017 04:30:05 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,189,1484035200"; d="scan'208";a="1113597969"
Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.137])
 ([10.237.220.137])
 by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Feb 2017 04:30:05 -0800
To: Jan Blunck <jblunck@infradead.org>, dev@dpdk.org
References: <1487152929-23627-1-git-send-email-jblunck@infradead.org>
 <1487600262-14382-2-git-send-email-jblunck@infradead.org>
Cc: david.marchand@6wind.com, shreyansh.jain@nxp.com
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Message-ID: <e2fe8fe7-9005-f782-b91d-e9a3857eee08@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:30:04 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1487600262-14382-2-git-send-email-jblunck@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/8] eal: use different constructor
 priorities for initcalls
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:30:07 -0000

On 2/20/2017 2:17 PM, Jan Blunck wrote:
> This introduces different initcall macros to allow for late registration of
> the virtual device bus.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@infradead.org>
> Tested-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>

<...>

>  
> -#define RTE_INIT(func) \
> -static void __attribute__((constructor, used)) func(void)
> +#define RTE_EAL_INIT(func) \
> +static void __attribute__((constructor(101), used)) func(void)
> +
> +#define RTE_POST_EAL_INIT(func) \
> +static void __attribute__((constructor(102), used)) func(void)
> +
> +#define RTE_DEV_INIT(func) \
> +static void __attribute__((constructor(103), used)) func(void)
> +
> +#define RTE_INIT(func) RTE_DEV_INIT(func)

Does it make sense to give some gaps among priorities,
101, 102, 103 --> 100, 200 , 300

When new priorities added (not sure if that ever will happen), is
changing previous priorities cause a ABI breakage?