From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 19/19] timer: add support to non-EAL thread
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:57:40 +0100
Message-ID: <54DDCA94.2070300@6wind.com>
References: <1422842559-13617-1-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com>
 <1423728996-3004-1-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com>
 <1423728996-3004-20-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258213E5585@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <D0158A423229094DA7ABF71CF2FA0DA3118D97A2@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: "Liang, Cunming" <cunming.liang-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
 "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
 "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" <dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <D0158A423229094DA7ABF71CF2FA0DA3118D97A2-E2R4CRU6q/6iAffOGbnezLfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>

Hi,

On 02/13/2015 01:55 AM, Liang, Cunming wrote:
>> About ' lcore_id != LCORE_ID_ANY' vs ' lcore_id < RTE_MAX_LCORE'.
>> I think both ways are valid right now.
>> Though using ' lcore_id != LCORE_ID_ANY' means, that if user will setup
>> PER_LCORE(_lcore_id) for dynamically created thread to some value >=
>> RTE_MAX_LCORE,
>> then our code will not work properly.
>> Konstantin
> [LCM] Ok, now we get the agreement as below.
> 1. only using '< RTE_MAX_LCORE' to check the EAL thread with valid lcore_id.
> 2. LCORE_ID_ANY is used as lcore_id default value or used for any  unspecified lcore_id assignment.

Doing like this is fine for me, although I don't really agree with
the initial argument: it's should not be allowed for an application
to modify an eal variable (_lcore_id).

Regards,
Olivier