15/10/2024 09:10, Mattias Rönnblom: > On 2024-10-15 08:41, Mattias Rönnblom wrote: > > On 2024-10-14 10:17, Morten Brørup wrote: > > <snip> > > >> > >>> +/** > >>> + * Get pointer to lcore variable instance with the specified lcore id. > >>> + * > >>> + * @param lcore_id > >>> + * The lcore id specifying which of the @c RTE_MAX_LCORE value > >>> + * instances should be accessed. The lcore id need not be valid > >>> + * (e.g., may be @ref LCORE_ID_ANY), but in such a case, the pointer > >>> + * is also not valid (and thus should not be dereferenced). > >>> + * @param handle > >>> + * The lcore variable handle. > >>> + */ > >>> +#define RTE_LCORE_VAR_LCORE_VALUE(lcore_id, handle) \ > >>> + ((typeof(handle))rte_lcore_var_lcore_ptr(lcore_id, handle)) > >> > >> Please remove the _VALUE suffix. > >> > > > > You changed your mind? I'm missing the rationale here. > > > > I supposed this is a bit of subjective hairsplitting, but does anyone > else have an opinion? > > Short versus somewhat more readable name. > > To get "your own" value should be something like > > struct foo *lcore_foo = RTE_LCORE_VAR(foo); > versus > struct foo *lcore_foo = RTE_LCORE_VAR_VALUE(foo); > > We should also strip "_VALUE" off of the RTE_LCORE_FOREACH_VALUE() macro > name in case we change the names of the access macros.
I feel "_VALUE" is too much. I prefer the shorter version.
