30/05/2019 09:31, David Marchand:
> 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.
It is used by DPAA and some test.
I guess adding as experimental is fine too?
I'm fine with both options, I'm just trying to apply the policy
we agreed on. Does this case deserve an exception?
> 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.
