From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8BA458E8 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 18:44:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from was59-1-82-226-113-214.fbx.proxad.net ([82.226.113.214] helo=[192.168.0.10]) by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YKsRu-0006nA-6u; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 18:48:46 +0100 Message-ID: <54D8F210.1080904@6wind.com> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 18:44:48 +0100 From: Olivier MATZ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Liang, Cunming" , "dev@dpdk.org" References: <1422491072-5114-1-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com> <1422842559-13617-1-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com> <1422842559-13617-12-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com> <54D7C082.80803@6wind.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 11/17] log: fix the gap to support non-EAL thread 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:44:59 -0000 Hi, On 02/09/2015 03:19 PM, Liang, Cunming wrote: >>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_log.h >>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_log.h >>> @@ -144,6 +144,11 @@ uint32_t rte_get_log_level(void); >>> void rte_set_log_type(uint32_t type, int enable); >>> >>> /** >>> + * Get the global log type. >>> + */ >>> +uint32_t rte_get_log_type(void); >>> + >>> +/** >>> * Get the current loglevel for the message being processed. >>> * >>> * Before calling the user-defined stream for logging, the log >>> >> >> Wouldn't it be better to change the variable: >> static struct log_cur_msg log_cur_msg[RTE_MAX_LCORE]; >> into a pthread (tls) variable? >> >> With your patch, the log level and log type are not saved for >> non-EAL threads. If TLS were used, I think it would work in any case. > [LCM] Good point. But for this patch set, still suppose not involve big impact to EAL thread. > For improve non-EAL thread, we'll have a separate patch set for it. OK, that's fine Will it be for 2.0 or later?