20/09/2017 16:53, Van Haaren, Harry: > From: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula [mailto:pbhagavat...@caviumnetworks.com] > > 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. > > Hey all, > > I've been thinking a little, and adding the "is service core" functionality > in the > rte_service_* namespace might be the wrong place. The function name certainly > doesn't > roll off the tongue ( rte_service_lcore_has_service_role() ?? ) > > What if we add a new function to rte_lcore.h? The implementation could be in a > new file, rte_lcore.c, to avoid "static inline" in a control-path function. > > In my eyes, this approach is the cleanest as it allows re-use of the same > function > for various types, including SERVICE, RTE, OFF etc. > > > /** Probes if the calling core has a specific role. > * @retval 1 If the core has role matching the *role* passed in > * @retval 0 If the core's role does not match *role* passed in > */ > int > rte_lcore_has_role(enum rte_lcore_role_t role); > > > Application code becomes pretty self-documenting: > if (rte_lcore_has_role(ROLE_SERVICE)) { > // do something > } > > Thoughts? -Harry
OK, no problem
