[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: added new `rte_lcore_is_service_lcore` API.

[Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula]

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