On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 09:01:58 +0300 Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
> On 9/1/21 8:16 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > >>> /** > >>> - * @warning > >>> - * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this API may change without prior notice. > >>> - * > >>> * Return the cpuset for a given lcore. > >>> * @param lcore_id > >>> * the targeted lcore, which MUST be between 0 and RTE_MAX_LCORE-1. > >>> * @return > >>> * The cpuset of that lcore > >>> */ > >>> -__rte_experimental > >>> rte_cpuset_t > >>> rte_lcore_cpuset(unsigned int lcore_id); > >> > >> I'm wondering why negative lcore_id is supported above > >> with special meaning, but not supported here. > > > > The DPDK API stability in this case means staying bug-for-bug > > compatible. I.e passing -1 as unsigned int results in UINT_MAX which > > is invalid. > > Isn't promotion to stable the last chance to review and > fix without much pain? > My opinion is that if you want to change the API (including semantics), then the experimental clock would have to be reset.
