> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Tal Shnaiderman > Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 2:13 PM > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] eal: rename key opaque pointer in > TLS > > API > > > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Tal > Shnaiderman > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 12:25 PM > > > > > > rename the key opaque pointer from rte_tls_key to > rte_thread_tls_key > > > to avoid confusion with transport layer security. > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h > > > b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h > > > index 39737d1829..90bcb02554 100644 > > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h > > > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ extern "C" { > > > /** > > > * TLS key type, an opaque pointer. > > > */ > > > -typedef struct eal_tls_key *rte_tls_key; > > > +typedef struct eal_tls_key *rte_thread_tls_key; > > > > > > /** > > > * Set core affinity of the current thread. > > > @@ -63,7 +63,8 @@ void rte_thread_get_affinity(rte_cpuset_t > *cpusetp); > > > */ > > > > > > __rte_experimental > > > -int rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_tls_key *key, void > > > (*destructor)(void *)); > > > +int rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_thread_tls_key *key, > > > + void (*destructor)(void *)); > > > > > > > I agree with your argument for TLS confusion. > > > > How about rte_thread_key, instead of rte_thread_tls_key. Having both > > thread and tls seems redundant. > > > > Thanks for the input, make sense, I'll change the name to your > suggestion. > > > > > Here are some more thoughts... It is meant as a provocation only, not > a real > > suggestion: > > > > The DPDK API often uses the term "lcore" as the abstraction for > threads, e.g. > > rte_per_lcore.h refers to thread local storage using "per_lcore", > while it is in > > fact "per thread". Why use another terminology in the API for thread > keys, > > instead of sticking with the "lcore" naming tradition, e.g. struct > > rte_lcore_key? > > > > You're right, but then there are some functions in eal_common_thread.c > which uses the 'thread' terminology, maybe it's a good idea to rework > it all to a single accepted term. >
Agreed. Especially after the introduction of service cores and non-EAL thread support, using "lcore" as a terminology for "thread" seems to be a legacy convention with decreasing relevance. However, cleaning up that convention would totally break the ABI, and take quite an effort. So I guess it will remain wishful thinking only. :-) But we can follow your lead and do it right with new ABIs.
