On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:51 AM Stephen Hemminger <
step...@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2019 00:46:30 +0200
> Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> > 23/05/2019 15:58, David Marchand:
> > > From: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
> > >
> > > The fields of the internal EAL core configuration are currently
> > > laid bare as part of the API. This is not good practice and limits
> > > fixing issues with layout and sizes.
> > >
> > > Make new accessor functions for the fields used by current drivers
> > > and examples.
> > [...]
> > > +DPDK_19.08 {
> > > + global:
> > > +
> > > + rte_lcore_cpuset;
> > > + rte_lcore_index;
> > > + rte_lcore_to_cpu_id;
> > > + rte_lcore_to_socket_id;
> > > +
> > > +} DPDK_19.05;
> > > +
> > > EXPERIMENTAL {
> > > global:
> >
> > Just to make sure, are we OK to introduce these functions
> > as non-experimental?
>
> They were in previous releases as inlines this patch converts them
> to real functions.
>
>
Well, yes and no.
rte_lcore_index and rte_lcore_to_socket_id already existed, so making them
part of the ABI is fine for me.
rte_lcore_to_cpu_id is new but seems quite safe in how it can be used,
adding it to the ABI is ok for me.
rte_lcore_cpuset is new too, and still a bit obscure to me. I am not really
convinced we need it until I understand why dpaa2 and fslmc bus need to
know about this.
I might need more time to look at it, so flag this as experimental sounds
fair to me.
--
David Marchand
