From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37289B41C
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:57:51 +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 <olivier.matz@6wind.com>)
 id 1YMD44-0004Wv-DO; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:01:40 +0100
Message-ID: <54DDCA94.2070300@6wind.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:57:40 +0100
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
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" <cunming.liang@intel.com>, 
 "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
References: <1422842559-13617-1-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com>
 <1423728996-3004-1-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com>
 <1423728996-3004-20-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213E5585@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <D0158A423229094DA7ABF71CF2FA0DA3118D97A2@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <D0158A423229094DA7ABF71CF2FA0DA3118D97A2@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 19/19] timer: add support to non-EAL thread
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <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: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:57:51 -0000

Hi,

On 02/13/2015 01:55 AM, Liang, Cunming wrote:
>> About ' lcore_id != LCORE_ID_ANY' vs ' lcore_id < RTE_MAX_LCORE'.
>> I think both ways are valid right now.
>> Though using ' lcore_id != LCORE_ID_ANY' means, that if user will setup
>> PER_LCORE(_lcore_id) for dynamically created thread to some value >=
>> RTE_MAX_LCORE,
>> then our code will not work properly.
>> Konstantin
> [LCM] Ok, now we get the agreement as below.
> 1. only using '< RTE_MAX_LCORE' to check the EAL thread with valid lcore_id.
> 2. LCORE_ID_ANY is used as lcore_id default value or used for any  unspecified lcore_id assignment.

Doing like this is fine for me, although I don't really agree with
the initial argument: it's should not be allowed for an application
to modify an eal variable (_lcore_id).

Regards,
Olivier