From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40CB8C61DA4 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 08:39:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C0740DF8; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 09:39:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA3A54067B for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 09:39:10 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1675931950; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=kMYb4spzZSftHkDQ/JJp5jnfFc7+vzTV4VAeDXWw5PQ=; b=dYBsVnw8dfmluqYe/ju1IEqkNJFCdOPc0JDWxXwj7iZoBs21P4SlBWXMG8iHDSsYO/JNgK GBRHMhwkz3RjMMEAZVlCFMS24WwY+uB33Tm14GUmDkBL1xQ3GNYFgtXSL/kDzTtsmzsAfN v1rPp9Xf24rLGQ7ty2m1rMR2UGYA/1w= Received: from mail-pj1-f72.google.com (mail-pj1-f72.google.com [209.85.216.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-368-_pA8V18eMDyVJtBswq6Nxw-1; Thu, 09 Feb 2023 03:39:08 -0500 X-MC-Unique: _pA8V18eMDyVJtBswq6Nxw-1 Received: by mail-pj1-f72.google.com with SMTP id x62-20020a17090a6c4400b00232d344a534so400155pjj.4 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2023 00:39:08 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=kMYb4spzZSftHkDQ/JJp5jnfFc7+vzTV4VAeDXWw5PQ=; b=Kybf4/ReTNbbzYH2Wfl0CYUiLVB2z/SvMKaq+4QH2CdhWWtw9Axt4kRAldpAst4vym BKbzJSbk8QR9v8fAtjEUgUhpWxm7uZs55RQdNRUU0Ajqx8Uzi0x0g6n0gueB06cuoWc+ ccSbibfwY3cRw0HAB6ieFhmxE3Dmwvp/QhSfYpcP4NdcRmjwFBR4JKwX/6/PcNxO7v45 PFbnHGjXRTdmTaQoptD1xC9sm3MQt7KXJNOC6zNNjkXrkn7SOkcT+85HPjUCTBMiLuMt xXD4FiXrb+bLzOmMjdALGknjVH7ThUFdOq7HIdPKcq5SUSMnnErTw7ZHxIfLp+ykDnQ7 A4Ww== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXGQPXl1hY6iERb9VZ3z1lH/XuEvisS6Po9rArOHotfJJxb1oAS Ew2umBdhBDd/p0hkA7nZ56ZUwEdx2xf8wW00ZE+gnkhbPxP55kDBE6t9dQYKO2NwQlbCNoPpVMB b+/zemWBPO8xDtBwMatU= X-Received: by 2002:a63:9512:0:b0:478:b1f3:d874 with SMTP id p18-20020a639512000000b00478b1f3d874mr1885197pgd.26.1675931947889; Thu, 09 Feb 2023 00:39:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+P4UJQdL7l/RSRFA3wP9nNmoMAPtiUrMHorLsuJkAv8tT3pqp43GpwXAw3tWA5krUex+lUTFhMIHvHYuXhs68= X-Received: by 2002:a63:9512:0:b0:478:b1f3:d874 with SMTP id p18-20020a639512000000b00478b1f3d874mr1885189pgd.26.1675931947603; Thu, 09 Feb 2023 00:39:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20221123102612.1688865-1-rjarry@redhat.com> <20230207193731.1242505-2-rjarry@redhat.com> <3cd7617f-dbb5-9626-2db1-e6a8ce5f6376@huawei.com> <373cbd89-3efe-fc4c-2300-edead9c0808c@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 09:38:56 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] eal: add lcore info in telemetry To: "lihuisong (C)" Cc: Robin Jarry , dev@dpdk.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=C3=B8rup?= , Kevin Laatz , Ferruh Yigit X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 9:31 AM David Marchand wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 3:19 AM lihuisong (C) wrote: > > >>> + if (info->lcore_id != lcore_id) > > >> Suggest: info->lcore_id != lcore_id -> lcore_id != info->lcore_id > > >> Here, info->lcore_id is a target and lcore_id is the variable to be > > >> judged, right? > > > Yeah that looks better. I didn't pay too much attention since this > > > principle is not well respected in the current code base. > > That's not a very good reason. > > It's similar to "ret != 0" and "p != NULL" in DPDK coding style. > > I'll squash this suggestion when applying. Hum, well, I have some other comments later in this series, so Robin will fix this himself. -- David Marchand