RE: [PATCH v1 0/5] prefix lcore role enum values

["Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>]

> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> Sent: Thursday, 18 June 2026 18.20
> 
> 17/06/2026 13:48, Morten Brørup:
> > > From: Huisong Li [mailto:lihuisong@huawei.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 17 June 2026 12.28
> > >
> > > Add the RTE_LCORE_ prefix to the lcore role enum values in
> > > rte_lcore_role_t
> > > to follow DPDK naming conventions.
> > >
> > > - ROLE_RTE      -> RTE_LCORE_ROLE_RTE
> > > - ROLE_OFF      -> RTE_LCORE_ROLE_OFF
> > > - ROLE_SERVICE  -> RTE_LCORE_ROLE_SERVICE
> > > - ROLE_NON_EAL  -> RTE_LCORE_ROLE_NON_EAL
> > >
> > > Old names are kept as macros aliasing to the new names to preserve
> > > backward compatibility.
> > >
> >
> > Series-Acked-by: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
> 
> Squashed and applied, thanks.
> 
> I have a doubt about RTE_LCORE_ROLE_RTE: could we find a better name?

Yes, it made more sense when lcores were either used by DPDK or not.
Note that it's used by both workers and the main lcore.

> 
> Also we should probably add some comments to explain each role.

+1

BTW, I thought the Non-EAL role was for registered control plane threads. But then I looked into Grout.
Grout uses the Non-EAL role for its dataplane threads. And the RTE role for its main thread, which is handling the control plane (which I suppose is not unusual).

Lcore roles and CPU core isolation is very flexible in DPDK. Maybe too flexible.