Re: [PATCH v2] eal/linux: enhanced error handling for affinity

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 20:26:18 +0800 (CST)
"Jianyue Wu" <wujianyue000@163.com> wrote:

> Yes, agree with that, there is also trace from kernel can see that. I'll ignore this patch.
> 
> 
> At 2024-04-27 08:18:53, "Stephen Hemminger" <stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> >On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:47:37 -0700
> >Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> >  int
> >> > --     
> >> 
> >> i do not think introducing os specific behavior/logging to the EAL
> >> is a good idea. logging although not formally part of the api surface
> >> should present the same experience for all platforms. the EAL should
> >> have a higher standard here.
> >>   
> >> > 2.34.1    
> >
> >For this case, the error message would be better if there was some way
> >to look at the cgroups and mark the cores that are not available as if
> >they were offline lcores.
> >
> >  

The current behavior is good enough. If application has an issue with
affinity because of cgroups or something else, then the developer is going
to need to investigate and adding another message in EAL is not going
to help.

And introducing #ifdef is adding unnecessary special cases.