On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 6:30 PM Stephen Hemminger
<step...@networkplumber.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:05:01 +0200
> David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 9:40 PM Stephen Hemminger
> > <step...@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> > > +struct lcore_config {
> > > + pthread_t thread_id; /**< pthread identifier */
> > > + int pipe_master2slave[2]; /**< communication pipe with master */
> > > + int pipe_slave2master[2]; /**< communication pipe with master */
> > > +
> > > + lcore_function_t * volatile f; /**< function to call */
> > > + void * volatile arg; /**< argument of function */
> > > + volatile int ret; /**< return value of function */
> > > +
> > > + uint32_t core_id; /**< core number on socket for this
> > > lcore */
> > > + uint32_t core_index; /**< relative index, starting from 0 */
> > > + uint16_t socket_id; /**< physical socket id for this lcore
> > > */
> > > + uint8_t core_role; /**< role of core eg: OFF, RTE,
> > > SERVICE */
> > > + uint8_t detected; /**< true if lcore was detected */
> > > + volatile enum rte_lcore_state_t state; /**< lcore state */
> > > + rte_cpuset_t cpuset; /**< cpu set which the lcore affinity
> > > to */
> > > +};
> >
> > There are still changes on the core_id, core_index, socket_id that I
> > am not confortable with (at this point).
> >
> > I prepared a series for -rc1 on ABI changes in EAL (that I will send
> > shortly).
> > I took your patch without the changes on core_id, core_index and socket_id.
>
>
> Why, please be more precise.
>
I commented earlier that there were integer conversion with the fields
you changed.
core_id is ok, and a uint32_t would be fine, but this does not change the size.
socket_id needs investigation, but should be safe.
I am nervous about core_index, because it is used as a signed integer.
It looks too dangerous to blindly accept this change with the only
reason of saving space.
--
David Marchand
