<snip> > > 30/07/2021 23:44, Honnappa Nagarahalli: > > The current expected behaviour of the function rte_ctrl_thread_create > > is rigid which makes the implementation of the function complex. > > Make the expected behaviour abstract to allow for simplified > > implementation. > > > > With this change, the calls to pthread_setaffinity_np can be moved to > > the control thread. This will avoid the use of pthread_barrier_wait > > and simplify the synchronization mechanism between > > rte_ctrl_thread_create and the calling thread. > > > > Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com> > > --- > > +* eal: The expected behaviour of the function > > +``rte_ctrl_thread_create`` > > + abstracted to allow for simplified implementation. The new > > +behaviour is > > + as follows: > > + Creates a control thread with the given name. The affinity of the > > +new > > + thread is based on the CPU affinity retrieved at the time > > +rte_eal_init() > > + was called, the dataplane and service lcores are then excluded. > > I don't understand what is different of the current API: > * Wrapper to pthread_create(), pthread_setname_np() and > * pthread_setaffinity_np(). The affinity of the new thread is based > * on the CPU affinity retrieved at the time rte_eal_init() was called, > * the dataplane and service lcores are then excluded. My concern is for the word "Wrapper". I am not sure how much we are bound by that to keep the code as a "wrapper". The new patch does not change the high level behavior.
Are you saying you are ok with the patch without the deprecation notice? > > Anyway, there is not enough meaningful acks. >
