From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Kuenzer Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] eal: add option --master-lcore Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 11:34:03 +0100 Message-ID: <5475AC9B.8060406@neclab.eu> References: <1416692622-28886-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> <1416692622-28886-11-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> <54744756.4010207@neclab.eu> <4906267.1tRnJm3qQV@xps13> <20141125133943.GB2300@bricha3-MOBL3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Bruce Richardson , Thomas Monjalon Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141125133943.GB2300@bricha3-MOBL3> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On 25.11.2014 14:39, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 01:45:22PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> Hi Simon, >> >> 2014-11-25 10:09, Simon Kuenzer: >>> thanks for your work. I have one (minor) comment for this patch that >>> should be fixed in a later version. >> >>>> + /* default master lcore is the first one */ >>>> + if (cfg->master_lcore == 0) >>>> + cfg->master_lcore = rte_get_next_lcore(-1, 0, 0); >>>> + >>> >>> Might be confusing if a user specifies --master-lcore 0 and uses a >>> coremask/corelist where core id 0 is not specified. >> >> Yes, in this corner case, master-lcore will be adjusted instead of having >> an error. >> >>> What about setting cfg->master_lcore to (RTE_MAX_LCORE + 1) on >>> initialization in order to distinguish if a master_lcore got specified >>> by the user or not? >> >> Even simpler, I can fix it by introducing a flag master_lcore_parsed and >> do the adjustment only if the option is not parsed. >> > I agree that that sounds like a simpler approach, since we already have flags > for what args are parsed or not. > > /Bruce > Fine with me :-). I also agree that having the flag is even a cleaner solution. Thanks, Simon