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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,URIBL_SBL,URIBL_SBL_A autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36EC9C28CC0 for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 07:31:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A212553E for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 07:31:55 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C9A212553E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dev-bounces@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 017A14CA6; Thu, 30 May 2019 09:31:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ua1-f68.google.com (mail-ua1-f68.google.com [209.85.222.68]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A370375B for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 09:31:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ua1-f68.google.com with SMTP id l3so1980615uad.4 for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 00:31:54 -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=6q6NPXE/f8Fx1ATTyjov7Hrsdz0Mg34Pajnno7b/K+Q=; b=P8A+9+R1xAwLW068+6kKwv+tXbERNyXlwTSvDD0bUE0tZep6EV5GuGoR+ynCE73hUM MB9synEmK0gZ4N/Mm4a0F1PYlsv2IBhcXpExHfXDItLWvDJq7p2/KGh1CUlAGkP789lE ZlW+43ugZh2Ly4Y4kBwvg9jl3ZcVrnO/NzVu5XueKO7t0oAmqZL7REZRjhHp1+Xe7z3y KlQlhpY9Wd/hIW+iCDFMt9MVk2M7wJ10fDnjEO7RRdvydWCC4O2qzsD6aG1m8P88R7lW 91rEBx9xTy5bNIFYbv5P8ALn14imJX7UBrGD+BRirh9LFtTTnADq1w3Qt0h7B54/Ad38 MLuQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXGLIA2j+EHc24vonRZLdB/QVYq90ClUHRmIthtepGMLncpIo3p o5gCq0/kggXH3gyBzLLs1Ga6SRn6ysklhSWciWIN8Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwMhKf4pQobJKu3IW1vWS+nDXjg7K8tECNwriXxpMbZzlDAW8tFrpsqiTtml6wdKivDn1+n6ck0/Kyo/YlqqjY= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:5e16:: with SMTP id z22mr1163149uag.41.1559201513648; Thu, 30 May 2019 00:31:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190408182510.16078-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <1558619942-9723-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com> <1558619942-9723-3-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com> <1721310.r4ByrxUKRB@xps> <20190529155141.5d773396@hermes.lan> In-Reply-To: <20190529155141.5d773396@hermes.lan> From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 09:31:42 +0200 Message-ID: To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: Thomas Monjalon , dev , Kevin Traynor , Neil Horman , Luca Boccassi , Bruce Richardson 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 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. rte_lcore_cpuset is new too, and still a bit obscure to me. I am not really convinced we need it until I understand why dpaa2 and fslmc bus need to know about this. I might need more time to look at it, so flag this as experimental sounds fair to me. -- David Marchand