On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 05:53:04PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 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
>
Thanks for all the inputs will spin up a v2.
-Pavan
