From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [143.182.124.21]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC95AB03 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 19:11:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Jun 2014 10:11:08 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,472,1400050800"; d="scan'208";a="445289249" Received: from debian-x64.ch.intel.com ([10.2.63.57]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Jun 2014 10:10:28 -0700 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:58:28 -0700 From: Patrick Lu To: "Richardson, Bruce" Message-ID: <20140613165828.GA31321@debian-x64.ch.intel.com> References: <1402519509-26653-1-git-send-email-Patrick.Lu@intel.com> <9007853.cgh6aaULN3@xps13> <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B01AA35210@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> <539962C0.10701@6wind.com> <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B01AA357CE@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B01AA357CE@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Add an API to query enabled core index X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 17:11:39 -0000 On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 08:54:11AM -0700, Richardson, Bruce wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:20 AM > > To: Richardson, Bruce; Thomas Monjalon; Lu, Patrick > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Add an API to query enabled core index > > > > Hello, > > > > On 06/11/2014 11:57 PM, Richardson, Bruce wrote: > > >> I think core_id2 is not a representative name. > > >> What do you think of renaming core_id as lcore_hwid and core_id2 as > > >> lcore_index? > > >> > > >> -- > > > I like lcore_index as the name for the new function. However, I'm not sure in > > that case that we want/need to rename the old one. > > > > What about lcore_rank ? > > It may avoid confusion between "id" and "index", which are quite > > close visually and phonetically. > > Not sure about rank, index is more correct. How about making it "app_index" or "app_idx", to indicate that it's not a global id but rather the idx that's local to the running app instance. > > Other alternative approach would be rte_lcore_position() API that takes a hardware lcore id, and tells you it's "position" in the coremask for the application, i.e. lcore 6 is in position 2 (of e.g. 5) lcores, for instance. [It would obviously return -1 on non-active cores.] The main purpose of this API is for a running thread know its relative index in all enabled core, so it can access the shared data structure with correct index. I don't know if we necessarily need to pass in a hardware lcore id, I suggest the API will implicit call rte_lcore_id. I think either position or index is a much appropriated name for this API. > > > > > I agree that we should not change the old lcore_id, its name is already > > appropriate. > > > And it's so widely used that changing it would break the code of probably every single Intel DPDK application ever written!