[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/7] service cores: header and implementation

[Van Haaren, Harry]

> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 10:55 AM
> To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>; Van Haaren, Harry
> <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles at intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richardson at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] service cores: header and implementation
> 
> 11/07/2017 10:29, Jerin Jacob:
> > IMO, We don't need to expose rte_service_private.h to application. If
> > you agree, add the following or similar change
> 
> If it must not be exposed, the file should not have the prefix rte_
> In doc/api/doxy-api.conf, every files with rte_ prefix will be processed
> for doxygen documentation:
> 	FILE_PATTERNS = rte_*.h


The service registration API should be exposed to the application.

Imagine a use case where the application wants to run services *and* an application specific function on the same core.  In the current implementation this is possible, as the application can register a service. The app then configures all services (including its own "app-service") to run on a service lcore.

If we hide the service registration from the application, we make it impossible for the application to multiplex services and application specific workloads on a single core.


I strongly prefer of leaving the header as is. Given we have EXPERIMENTAL tag, ABI/API are not a concern until later - we have time to figure out if the service-registration API is good enough in current form, before we commit to it.

I'll send v5 asap with headers as is.