On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 15 February 2017 03:32 PM, Jan Blunck wrote: >> >> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h >> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h >> @@ -258,8 +258,16 @@ static inline int rte_gettid(void) >> return RTE_PER_LCORE(_thread_id); >> } >> >> -#define RTE_INIT(func) \ >> -static void __attribute__((constructor, used)) func(void) >> +#define RTE_EAL_INIT(func) \ >> +static void __attribute__((constructor(101), used)) func(void) >> + >> +#define RTE_POST_EAL_INIT(func) \ >> +static void __attribute__((constructor(102), used)) func(void) >> + >> +#define RTE_DEV_INIT(func) \ >> +static void __attribute__((constructor(103), used)) func(void) > > > Shouldn't we simply allow this priority to be default to allow for some > priority space between buses and default init? >
The absolute numbers are not that important. We can always adjust them. Important is the relative order. If you have a use-case for something that needs to be initialized before the devices but can't get initialized with the eal/post-eal then please speak up.
