From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal: added new `rte_lcore_is_service_lcore` API. Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 23:07:41 +0530 Message-ID: <20170915173740.GA21540@PBHAGAVATULA-LT> References: <1503501027-11046-1-git-send-email-pbhagavatula@caviumnetworks.com> <20170915145933.GA16776@PBHAGAVATULA-LT> <6875069.BRSTqJL15t@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: harry.van.haaren@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam03on0042.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.42.42]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD0F23238 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 19:38:05 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6875069.BRSTqJL15t@xps> 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 Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 05:51:36PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 15/09/2017 16:59, Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula: > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:44:57PM +0000, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > > > > > > We could also choose to add this function to rte_service.h ? > > > > > > > > > > Yes that is an option, and OK with me. > > > > > > > > > > @Pavan what do you think of adding it to service.h, implement in .c and add > > > > to .map? > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ROLE_SERVICE/ROLE_RTE defines the role of a lcore so it made sense to put > > > > it in rte_lcore.h as lcore properties are accessed mostly through this header. > > > > I'm fine with adding it to service.h as suggested by Harry. > > > > > > > > -Pavan > > > > > > *as suggested by Thomas ;) > > > > > > Initially I thought it made more sense in lcore.h too, however the application > > > should only require knowing if core X is a service core if it cares about > > > services / service-cores, hence I'm fine with rte_service.h too. > > > > > > -Harry > > > > > Agreed, will spin up a v2. > > The most difficult is to find a good name for this function :) If not rte_lcore_is_service_core then how about rte_lcore_is_role_service? But this would need a sibling api rte_lcore_is_role_rte (or a better one) which is satisfied by rte_lcore_is_enabled :( IMO when role was limited to RTE & OFF rte_lcore_is_enabled fits now with new role SERVICE it looks out of place cause even service lcores are "enabled". Modifying rte_lcore_is_enabled would be a huge task (API change) as it is used widely in many places. -Pavan