Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Add an API to query enabled core index

["Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

> -----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.]

> 
> 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!