> -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:20 AM > To: Richardson, Bruce; Thomas Monjalon; Lu, Patrick > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Add an API to query enabled core index > > Hello, > > On 06/11/2014 11:57 PM, Richardson, Bruce wrote: > >> I think core_id2 is not a representative name. > >> What do you think of renaming core_id as lcore_hwid and core_id2 as > >> lcore_index? > >> > >> -- > > I like lcore_index as the name for the new function. However, I'm not sure > > in > that case that we want/need to rename the old one. > > What about lcore_rank ? > It may avoid confusion between "id" and "index", which are quite > close visually and phonetically.
Not sure about rank, index is more correct. How about making it "app_index" or "app_idx", to indicate that it's not a global id but rather the idx that's local to the running app instance. Other alternative approach would be rte_lcore_position() API that takes a hardware lcore id, and tells you it's "position" in the coremask for the application, i.e. lcore 6 is in position 2 (of e.g. 5) lcores, for instance. [It would obviously return -1 on non-active cores.] > > I agree that we should not change the old lcore_id, its name is already > appropriate. > And it's so widely used that changing it would break the code of probably every single Intel DPDK application ever written!
