From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E8E1A045E for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 19:00:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47074378B; Thu, 30 May 2019 19:00:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ua1-f67.google.com (mail-ua1-f67.google.com [209.85.222.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2B0375B for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 19:00:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ua1-f67.google.com with SMTP id w44so2742112uad.6 for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 10:00:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IPE5HreSjvXujHjdPRf8OOdA/Mj8E7DUVYSBa2smTME=; b=qRigrNTKngSNf8oCi10QAzk4w/I4XHEIAShI9LHdf6XUGN7Gnwui5p10JVeYMQtoQm AKAM6kPBBxiZbQz0un7+QEUGEuNaIKoB5I2MXZakkDmZzP8uCDfdX6r4fdzIyrevoCg3 Sz71s0+/5DGTYNL6gU5PKKacf/DzrwOZ6KlZcnEb6tW6O4BQJVAbTAupFMUypaZ3AmAL m0Gv1Hl/PL0tkJWnXqKRjgYqoY2Wh2DAR0eLjj1LZEXLtLDV8Zxs1jjL/uVc/W/ZepW7 G4rLB8lFs++NnJY5MCMb446cUXhsT88cJv+r8hr51Sb5spU8C9SKUDfSTzhhbEyMH1fC wQ5A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXcQaNCpodhp5wNoXwssc2NHduUg5++Z4I6/5eUsYAn6qH4pPwQ 7/8FkeaeJJL7DLvOln/m2YihIgH0hME2wKZ9c3fB1A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxJWx+QIxzy7gWWneQ/UlYTYuLf3D4GeBNvS+io26pfBVPq8/e0TItY+irVRCst086xTQ8vBnikZ6ENLs2qT2E= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:c8:: with SMTP id 66mr69238uaj.53.1559235647534; Thu, 30 May 2019 10:00:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190408182510.16078-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <4005890.T4jVSnTFc5@xps> <20190530101118.GA1107@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <7160338.BtPRTxGgPp@xps> In-Reply-To: <7160338.BtPRTxGgPp@xps> From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 19:00:36 +0200 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Bruce Richardson , Stephen Hemminger , dev , Kevin Traynor , Neil Horman , Luca Boccassi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/5] eal: add lcore accessors X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:39 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 30/05/2019 12:11, Bruce Richardson: > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 09:40:08AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 30/05/2019 09:31, David Marchand: > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:51 AM Stephen Hemminger < > > > > stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 30 May 2019 00:46:30 +0200 > > > > > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 23/05/2019 15:58, David Marchand: > > > > > > > From: Stephen Hemminger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fields of the internal EAL core configuration are currently > > > > > > > laid bare as part of the API. This is not good practice and > limits > > > > > > > fixing issues with layout and sizes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make new accessor functions for the fields used by current > drivers > > > > > > > and examples. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > +DPDK_19.08 { > > > > > > > + global: > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + rte_lcore_cpuset; > > > > > > > + rte_lcore_index; > > > > > > > + rte_lcore_to_cpu_id; > > > > > > > + rte_lcore_to_socket_id; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +} DPDK_19.05; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > EXPERIMENTAL { > > > > > > > global: > > > > > > > > > > > > Just to make sure, are we OK to introduce these functions > > > > > > as non-experimental? > > > > > > > > > > They were in previous releases as inlines this patch converts them > > > > > to real functions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, yes and no. > > > > > > > > rte_lcore_index and rte_lcore_to_socket_id already existed, so > making them > > > > part of the ABI is fine for me. > > > > > > > > rte_lcore_to_cpu_id is new but seems quite safe in how it can be > used, > > > > adding it to the ABI is ok for me. > > > > > > It is used by DPAA and some test. > > > I guess adding as experimental is fine too? > > > I'm fine with both options, I'm just trying to apply the policy > > > we agreed on. Does this case deserve an exception? > > > > > > > While it may be a good candidate, I'm not sure how much making an > exception > > for it really matters. I'd be tempted to just mark it experimental and > then > > have it stable for the 19.11 release. What do we really lose by waiting a > > release to stabilize it? > > I would agree Bruce. > If no more comment, I will wait for a v5 of this series. > I agree that there is no reason we make an exception for those 2 new ones. But to me the existing rte_lcore_index and rte_lcore_to_socket_id must be marked as stable. This is to avoid breaking existing users that did not set ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API. I will prepare a v5 later. -- David Marchand