On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 08:54:11AM -0700, Richardson, Bruce wrote: > > > > -----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.] The main purpose of this API is for a running thread know its relative index in all enabled core, so it can access the shared data structure with correct index. I don't know if we necessarily need to pass in a hardware lcore id, I suggest the API will implicit call rte_lcore_id.
I think either position or index is a much appropriated name for this API. > > > > > 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!
