On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 05:51:36PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 15/09/2017 16:59, Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula: > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:44:57PM +0000, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > > > > > > We could also choose to add this function to rte_service.h ? > > > > > > > > > > Yes that is an option, and OK with me. > > > > > > > > > > @Pavan what do you think of adding it to service.h, implement in .c > > > > > and add > > > > to .map? > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ROLE_SERVICE/ROLE_RTE defines the role of a lcore so it made sense > > > > to put > > > > it in rte_lcore.h as lcore properties are accessed mostly through this > > > > header. > > > > I'm fine with adding it to service.h as suggested by Harry. > > > > > > > > -Pavan > > > > > > *as suggested by Thomas ;) > > > > > > Initially I thought it made more sense in lcore.h too, however the > > > application > > > should only require knowing if core X is a service core if it cares about > > > services / service-cores, hence I'm fine with rte_service.h too. > > > > > > -Harry > > > > > Agreed, will spin up a v2. > > The most difficult is to find a good name for this function :)
If not rte_lcore_is_service_core then how about rte_lcore_is_role_service? But this would need a sibling api rte_lcore_is_role_rte (or a better one) which is satisfied by rte_lcore_is_enabled :( IMO when role was limited to RTE & OFF rte_lcore_is_enabled fits now with new role SERVICE it looks out of place cause even service lcores are "enabled". Modifying rte_lcore_is_enabled would be a huge task (API change) as it is used widely in many places. -Pavan
