Hello Neil,
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 07:28:26AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 02:04:03AM +0200, Gaetan Rivet wrote:
> > Build a central list to quickly see each used priorities for
> > constructors, allowing to verify that they are both above 100 and in the
> > proper order.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com>
> > Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>
> > Acked-by: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com>
> > ---
> > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_log.c | 2 +-
> > lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h | 2 +-
> > lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h | 8 +++++++-
> > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_log.c
> > b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_log.c
> > index a27192620..36b9d6e08 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_log.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_log.c
> > @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ static const struct logtype logtype_strings[] = {
> > };
> >
> > /* Logging should be first initializer (before drivers and bus) */
> > -RTE_INIT_PRIO(rte_log_init, 101);
> > +RTE_INIT_PRIO(rte_log_init, LOG);
> > static void
> > rte_log_init(void)
> > {
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h
> > b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h
> > index 6fb08341a..eb9eded4e 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h
> > @@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ enum rte_iova_mode rte_bus_get_iommu_class(void);
> > * The constructor has higher priority than PMD constructors.
> > */
> > #define RTE_REGISTER_BUS(nm, bus) \
> > -RTE_INIT_PRIO(businitfn_ ##nm, 110); \
> > +RTE_INIT_PRIO(businitfn_ ##nm, BUS); \
> > static void businitfn_ ##nm(void) \
> > {\
> > (bus).name = RTE_STR(nm);\
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h
> > b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h
> > index 6c5bc5a76..8f04518f7 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h
> > @@ -81,6 +81,12 @@ typedef uint16_t unaligned_uint16_t;
> > */
> > #define RTE_SET_USED(x) (void)(x)
> >
> > +#define RTE_PRIORITY_LOG 101
> > +#define RTE_PRIORITY_BUS 110
> > +
> > +#define RTE_PRIO(prio) \
> > + RTE_PRIORITY_ ## prio
> > +
> > /**
> > * Run function before main() with low priority.
> > *
> > @@ -102,7 +108,7 @@ static void __attribute__((constructor, used))
> > func(void)
> > * Lowest number is the first to run.
> > */
> > #define RTE_INIT_PRIO(func, prio) \
> > -static void __attribute__((constructor(prio), used)) func(void)
> > +static void __attribute__((constructor(RTE_PRIO(prio)), used)) func(void)
> >
> It just occured to me, that perhaps you should add a RTE_PRORITY_LAST
> priority,
> and redefine RTE_INIT to RTE_INIT_PRIO(func, RTE_PRIORITY_LAST) for clarity.
> I
> presume that constructors with no explicit priority run last, but the gcc
> manual doesn't explicitly say that. It would be a heck of a bug to track down
> if somehow unprioritized constructors ran early.
>
> Neil
>
While certainly poorly documented, the behavior is well-defined. I don't see
a situation where the bug you describe could arise.
Adding RTE_PRIORITY_LAST is pretty harmless, but I'm not sure it's
justified to add it. If you still think it is useful, I will do it.
I'd be curious to hear if anyone has had issues of this kind.
--
Gaëtan Rivet
6WIND
