On 2023-10-10 15:31, David Marchand wrote:
On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 8:23 PM Mattias Rönnblom
<mattias.ronnb...@ericsson.com> wrote:
[snip]
+A module may use more than one event handler, for convenience or to
+further decouple sub-modules. However, the dispatcher may impose an
+upper limit of the number handlers. In addition, installing a large
+number of handlers increase dispatcher overhead, although this does
+not nessarily translate to a system-level performance degradation. See
necessarily*
Will fix.
[snip]
+Event Clustering
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
+The dispatcher maintains the order of events destined for the same
+handler.
+
+*Order* here refers to the order in which the events were delivered
+from the event device to the dispatcher (i.e., in the event array
+populated by ``rte_event_dequeue_burst()``), in relation to the order
+in which the dispatcher deliveres these events to the application.
+
+The dispatcher *does not* guarantee to maintain the order of events
+delivered to *different* handlers.
+
+For example, assume that ``MODULE_A_QUEUE_ID`` expands to the value 0,
+and ``MODULE_B_STAGE_0_QUEUE_ID`` expands to the value 1. Then
+consider a scenario where the following events are dequeued from the
+event device (qid is short for event queue id).
+
+.. code-block::
Surprisingly, Ubuntu in GHA sphinx complains about this code-block
directive while generating on my Fedora runs fine...
FAILED: doc/guides/html
/usr/bin/python3 ../buildtools/call-sphinx-build.py
/usr/bin/sphinx-build 23.11.0-rc0
/home/runner/work/dpdk/dpdk/doc/guides
/home/runner/work/dpdk/dpdk/build/doc/guides -a -W
Warning, treated as error:
/home/runner/work/dpdk/dpdk/doc/guides/prog_guide/dispatcher_lib.rst:253:Error
in "code-block" directive:
1 argument(s) required, 0 supplied.
.. code-block::
[e0: qid=1], [e1: qid=1], [e2: qid=0], [e3: qid=1]
Looking at
https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/usage/restructuredtext/directives.html#directive-code-block,
I suspect there is probably a difference in the default settings of
sphinx in those Ubuntu containers.
This is pseudo-code / close to C, so we could probably mark this block
as "C", but "none" works fine too.
WDYT?
I'm also running Ubuntu, and thus didn't experience this issue.
"none" seems better to me, to avoid potential future failures of syntax
highlighting.
Thanks!
