On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:59 PM Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> wrote: > > > Do you mean - make this new dynamic-lcore API return an error if callied > > > from secondary process? > > > > > > > Yes, and prohibiting from attaching a secondary process if dynamic > > lcore API has been used in primary. > > I intend to squash in patch 6: > > https://github.com/david-marchand/dpdk/commit/e5861ee734bfe2e4dc23d9b919b0db2a32a58aee > > But secondary process can attach before lcore_register, so we'll have some > sort of inconsistency in behaviour.
If the developer tries to use both features, he gets an ERROR log in the two init path. So whatever the order at runtime, we inform the developer (who did not read/understand the rte_thread_register() documentation) that what he is doing is unsupported. > If we really want to go ahead with such workaround - > probably better to introduce explicit EAL flag ( --single-process or so). > As Thomas and Bruce suggested, if I understood them properly. A EAL flag is a stable API from the start, as there is nothing describing how we can remove one. So a new EAL flag for an experimental API/feature seems contradictory. Going with a new features status API... I think it is beyond this series. Thomas seems to suggest an automatic resolution when features conflict happens.. ? I'll send the v4, let's discuss it there if you want. Thanks. -- David Marchand
