On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 07:00:36PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:39 PM Thomas Monjalon
> <[1]tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> 30/05/2019 12:11, Bruce Richardson:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 09:40:08AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 30/05/2019 09:31, David Marchand:
> > > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:51 AM Stephen Hemminger <
> > > > [2]step...@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 30 May 2019 00:46:30 +0200
> > > > > Thomas Monjalon <[3]tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 23/05/2019 15:58, David Marchand:
> > > > > > > From: Stephen Hemminger <[4]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?
> > >
> >
> > While it may be a good candidate, I'm not sure how much making an
> exception
> > for it really matters. I'd be tempted to just mark it experimental
> and then
> > have it stable for the 19.11 release. What do we really lose by
> waiting a
> > release to stabilize it?
> I would agree Bruce.
> If no more comment, I will wait for a v5 of this series.
>
> I agree that there is no reason we make an exception for those 2 new
> ones.
> But to me the existing rte_lcore_index and rte_lcore_to_socket_id must
> be marked as stable.
> This is to avoid breaking existing users that did not set
> ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API.
> I will prepare a v5 later.
> --
Yes, agreed. Any existing APIs that were already present as static inlines
can go straight to stable when added to the .map file.
/Bruce
