From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jan Blunck <jblunck@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] eal: use different constructor
	priorities for initcalls
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:05:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CALe+Z03kiSy7m16WU5LM07mWQxSAx3zDxOEuTgqs8wVrssM6Dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1487152929-23627-1-git-send-email-jblunck@infradead.org>
 <1487152929-23627-2-git-send-email-jblunck@infradead.org>
 <303901dd-da3c-38ea-2979-01ee66387b68@nxp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wr0-f195.google.com (mail-wr0-f195.google.com
 [209.85.128.195]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7CF2BA4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:05:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wr0-f195.google.com with SMTP id i10so31617626wrb.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 07:05:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <303901dd-da3c-38ea-2979-01ee66387b68@nxp.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 February 2017 03:32 PM, Jan Blunck wrote:
>>
>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h
>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h
>> @@ -258,8 +258,16 @@ static inline int rte_gettid(void)
>>         return RTE_PER_LCORE(_thread_id);
>>  }
>>
>> -#define RTE_INIT(func) \
>> -static void __attribute__((constructor, used)) func(void)
>> +#define RTE_EAL_INIT(func) \
>> +static void __attribute__((constructor(101), used)) func(void)
>> +
>> +#define RTE_POST_EAL_INIT(func) \
>> +static void __attribute__((constructor(102), used)) func(void)
>> +
>> +#define RTE_DEV_INIT(func) \
>> +static void __attribute__((constructor(103), used)) func(void)
>
>
> Shouldn't we simply allow this priority to be default to allow for some
> priority space between buses and default init?
>

The absolute numbers are not that important. We can always adjust
them. Important is the relative order. If you have a use-case for
something that needs to be initialized before the devices but can't
get initialized with the eal/post-eal then please speak up.