Re: [PATCH] examples/distributor: update dynamic configuration

[Omer Yamac <omer.yamac@ceng.metu.edu.tr>]

Hi,
Here is the final version. If it is ok, I will test the code and 
publish.

if (enable_lcore_rx_distributor){
// rx and distributor combined, 3 fixed function cores (stat, TX, at 
least 1 worker)
	min_cores = 4;
	num_workers = rte_lcore_count() - 3;
}
else{
// separate rx and distributor, 3 fixed function cores (stat, TX, at 
least 1 worker)
	min_cores = 5;
	num_workers = rte_lcore_count() - 4;
}

On 28.06.2022 14:25, Hunt, David wrote:
> On 28/06/2022 12:06, Omer Yamac wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> 
>> I have one more question. When I was working on new patch, I just want 
>> to make sure what we are doing.
>> On 27.06.2022 18:51, Hunt, David wrote:
>>> Hi Ömer,
>>> 
>>> I've a few comments:
>>> 
>>> On 21/06/2022 21:15, Abdullah Ömer Yamaç wrote:
>> --clipped--
>>>> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ volatile uint8_t quit_signal_rx;
>>>>   volatile uint8_t quit_signal_dist;
>>>>   volatile uint8_t quit_signal_work;
>>>>   unsigned int power_lib_initialised;
>>>> +bool enable_lcore_rx_distributor;
>>>>     static volatile struct app_stats {
>>>>       struct {
>> --clipped--
>>>> @@ -724,7 +794,12 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>>       if (ret < 0)
>>>>           rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "Invalid distributor 
>>>> parameters\n");
>>>>   -    if (rte_lcore_count() < 5)
>>>> +    if (enable_lcore_rx_distributor)
>>>> +        num_workers = rte_lcore_count() - 3;
>>>> +    else
>>>> +        num_workers = rte_lcore_count() - 4;
>>>> +
>>> 
>>> This could be "num_workers = rte_lcore_count() - (4 -
>>> enable_lcore_rx_distributor)".
>>> 
>> For the "if-else" case of enable_lcore_rx_distributor, we will reduce 
>> the line of codes; but I am not sure about that change. Because the 
>> type of the variable is bool and we are using arithmetic operation on 
>> that variable. I think it is a little bit harder for people to 
>> understand operation. Am I right? I can suggest one more solution. We 
>> may change the data type to "unsigned int" or Is it okay to leave as 
>> before?
>> 
>> --clipped--
> 
> 
> Hi Ömer,
> 
>    You raise a good point about readability. Let's leave it as you had
> it originally.  Maybe just add a couple of one-line comments? "rx and
> distributor combined, 3 fixed function cores" and "separate rx and
> distributor, 4 fixed function cores?
> 
> Rgds,
> Dave.