From: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
To: "Tal Shnaiderman" <talshn@nvidia.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: <thomas@monjalon.net>, <pallavi.kadam@intel.com>,
<dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com>, <navasile@linux.microsoft.com>,
<dmitrym@microsoft.com>, <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
<anatoly.burakov@intel.com>, <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] eal: rename key opaque pointer in TLS API
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 13:41:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C6163E@smartserver.smartshare.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210302112453.13300-3-talshn@nvidia.com>
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Tal Shnaiderman
> Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 12:25 PM
>
> rename the key opaque pointer from rte_tls_key to
> rte_thread_tls_key to avoid confusion with transport layer security.
>
[...]
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> index 39737d1829..90bcb02554 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ extern "C" {
> /**
> * TLS key type, an opaque pointer.
> */
> -typedef struct eal_tls_key *rte_tls_key;
> +typedef struct eal_tls_key *rte_thread_tls_key;
>
> /**
> * Set core affinity of the current thread.
> @@ -63,7 +63,8 @@ void rte_thread_get_affinity(rte_cpuset_t *cpusetp);
> */
>
> __rte_experimental
> -int rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_tls_key *key, void
> (*destructor)(void *));
> +int rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_thread_tls_key *key,
> + void (*destructor)(void *));
>
I agree with your argument for TLS confusion.
How about rte_thread_key, instead of rte_thread_tls_key. Having both thread and tls seems redundant.
Here are some more thoughts... It is meant as a provocation only, not a real suggestion:
The DPDK API often uses the term "lcore" as the abstraction for threads, e.g. rte_per_lcore.h refers to thread local storage using "per_lcore", while it is in fact "per thread". Why use another terminology in the API for thread keys, instead of sticking with the "lcore" naming tradition, e.g. struct rte_lcore_key?
Med venlig hilsen / kind regards
- Morten Brørup
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-02 12:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-02 11:24 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] EAL Thread TLS API enhancements Tal Shnaiderman
2021-03-02 11:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] eal: error number enhancement for thread TLS API Tal Shnaiderman
2021-03-02 11:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] eal: rename key opaque pointer in " Tal Shnaiderman
2021-03-02 12:41 ` Morten Brørup [this message]
2021-03-02 13:13 ` Tal Shnaiderman
2021-03-02 13:46 ` Morten Brørup
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C6163E@smartserver.smartshare.dk \
--to=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com \
--cc=dmitrym@microsoft.com \
--cc=navasile@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=pallavi.kadam@intel.com \
--cc=talshn@nvidia.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).