[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 18.05 v4] eal: add function to return number of detected sockets

[Bruce Richardson]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:38:37PM +0000, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 08-Mar-18 12:12 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 09:58:36AM +0000, Anatoly Burakov wrote:
> > > During lcore scan, find maximum socket ID and store it. This will
> > > break the ABI, so bump ABI version.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Notes:
> > >      v4:
> > >      - Remove backwards ABI compatibility, bump ABI instead
> > >      v3:
> > >      - Added ABI compatibility
> > >      v2:
> > >      - checkpatch changes
> > >      - check socket before deciding if the core is not to be used
> > > 
> > >   lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/Makefile        |  2 +-
> > >   lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_lcore.c  | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > >   lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h   |  1 +
> > >   lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_lcore.h |  8 +++++++
> > >   lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile      |  2 +-
> > >   lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map        |  9 +++++++-
> > >   6 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > Breaking the ABI is the best way to implement this change, and given the
> > deprecation was previously announced I'm ok with that.
> > 
> > Question: we are ok assuming that the socket numbers are sequential, or
> > nearly so, and knowing the maximum socket number seen is a good
> > approximation of the actual physical sockets? I know in terms of cores
> > on a system, the core id's often jump - are there systems where the
> > socket numbers do too?
> > 
> > /Bruce
> > 
> 
> I am not aware of any system that would jump sockets like that. I'm open to
> corrections, however :)
> 
> -- 
In the absense of any corrections, I think this is fine to have.

Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com>