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: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 23:01:03 +0530 Message-ID: <20170920173103.GA6627@PBHAGAVATULA-LT> References: <1503501027-11046-1-git-send-email-pbhagavatula@caviumnetworks.com> <20170915173740.GA21540@PBHAGAVATULA-LT> <1506605.4yxMIA60VI@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon , harry.van.haaren@intel.com Return-path: Received: from NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam01on0065.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.34.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6537CE5 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:31:29 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1506605.4yxMIA60VI@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 Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 05:53:04PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 20/09/2017 16:53, Van Haaren, Harry: > > From: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula [mailto:pbhagavatula@caviumnetworks.com] > > > 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. > > > > Hey all, > > > > I've been thinking a little, and adding the "is service core" functionality in the > > rte_service_* namespace might be the wrong place. The function name certainly doesn't > > roll off the tongue ( rte_service_lcore_has_service_role() ?? ) > > > > What if we add a new function to rte_lcore.h? The implementation could be in a > > new file, rte_lcore.c, to avoid "static inline" in a control-path function. > > > > In my eyes, this approach is the cleanest as it allows re-use of the same function > > for various types, including SERVICE, RTE, OFF etc. > > > > > > /** Probes if the calling core has a specific role. > > * @retval 1 If the core has role matching the *role* passed in > > * @retval 0 If the core's role does not match *role* passed in > > */ > > int > > rte_lcore_has_role(enum rte_lcore_role_t role); > > > > > > Application code becomes pretty self-documenting: > > if (rte_lcore_has_role(ROLE_SERVICE)) { > > // do something > > } > > > > Thoughts? -Harry > > OK, no problem > Thanks for all the inputs will spin up a v2. -Pavan