[2/2] eal: rename key opaque pointer in TLS API
Checks
Commit Message
rename the key opaque pointer from rte_tls_key to
rte_thread_tls_key to avoid confusion with transport layer security.
Suggested-by: Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Tal Shnaiderman <talshn@nvidia.com>
---
drivers/net/mlx5/linux/mlx5_flow_os.c | 2 +-
drivers/net/mlx5/windows/mlx5_flow_os.c | 2 +-
lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h | 13 +++++++------
lib/librte_eal/unix/rte_thread.c | 8 ++++----
lib/librte_eal/windows/rte_thread.c | 8 ++++----
5 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
Comments
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Tal Shnaiderman
> Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 12:25 PM
>
> rename the key opaque pointer from rte_tls_key to
> rte_thread_tls_key to avoid confusion with transport layer security.
>
[...]
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> index 39737d1829..90bcb02554 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ extern "C" {
> /**
> * TLS key type, an opaque pointer.
> */
> -typedef struct eal_tls_key *rte_tls_key;
> +typedef struct eal_tls_key *rte_thread_tls_key;
>
> /**
> * Set core affinity of the current thread.
> @@ -63,7 +63,8 @@ void rte_thread_get_affinity(rte_cpuset_t *cpusetp);
> */
>
> __rte_experimental
> -int rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_tls_key *key, void
> (*destructor)(void *));
> +int rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_thread_tls_key *key,
> + void (*destructor)(void *));
>
I agree with your argument for TLS confusion.
How about rte_thread_key, instead of rte_thread_tls_key. Having both thread and tls seems redundant.
Here are some more thoughts... It is meant as a provocation only, not a real suggestion:
The DPDK API often uses the term "lcore" as the abstraction for threads, e.g. rte_per_lcore.h refers to thread local storage using "per_lcore", while it is in fact "per thread". Why use another terminology in the API for thread keys, instead of sticking with the "lcore" naming tradition, e.g. struct rte_lcore_key?
Med venlig hilsen / kind regards
- Morten Brørup
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] eal: rename key opaque pointer in TLS
> API
>
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Tal Shnaiderman
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 12:25 PM
> >
> > rename the key opaque pointer from rte_tls_key to rte_thread_tls_key
> > to avoid confusion with transport layer security.
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> > b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> > index 39737d1829..90bcb02554 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ extern "C" {
> > /**
> > * TLS key type, an opaque pointer.
> > */
> > -typedef struct eal_tls_key *rte_tls_key;
> > +typedef struct eal_tls_key *rte_thread_tls_key;
> >
> > /**
> > * Set core affinity of the current thread.
> > @@ -63,7 +63,8 @@ void rte_thread_get_affinity(rte_cpuset_t *cpusetp);
> > */
> >
> > __rte_experimental
> > -int rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_tls_key *key, void
> > (*destructor)(void *));
> > +int rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_thread_tls_key *key,
> > + void (*destructor)(void *));
> >
>
> I agree with your argument for TLS confusion.
>
> How about rte_thread_key, instead of rte_thread_tls_key. Having both
> thread and tls seems redundant.
>
Thanks for the input, make sense, I'll change the name to your suggestion.
>
> Here are some more thoughts... It is meant as a provocation only, not a real
> suggestion:
>
> The DPDK API often uses the term "lcore" as the abstraction for threads, e.g.
> rte_per_lcore.h refers to thread local storage using "per_lcore", while it is in
> fact "per thread". Why use another terminology in the API for thread keys,
> instead of sticking with the "lcore" naming tradition, e.g. struct
> rte_lcore_key?
>
You're right, but then there are some functions in eal_common_thread.c which uses the 'thread' terminology, maybe it's a good idea to rework it all to a single accepted term.
>
> Med venlig hilsen / kind regards
> - Morten Brørup
>
>
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Tal Shnaiderman
> Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 2:13 PM
>
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] eal: rename key opaque pointer in
> TLS
> > API
> >
> > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> >
> >
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Tal
> Shnaiderman
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 12:25 PM
> > >
> > > rename the key opaque pointer from rte_tls_key to
> rte_thread_tls_key
> > > to avoid confusion with transport layer security.
> > >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> > > b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> > > index 39737d1829..90bcb02554 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_thread.h
> > > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ extern "C" {
> > > /**
> > > * TLS key type, an opaque pointer.
> > > */
> > > -typedef struct eal_tls_key *rte_tls_key;
> > > +typedef struct eal_tls_key *rte_thread_tls_key;
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * Set core affinity of the current thread.
> > > @@ -63,7 +63,8 @@ void rte_thread_get_affinity(rte_cpuset_t
> *cpusetp);
> > > */
> > >
> > > __rte_experimental
> > > -int rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_tls_key *key, void
> > > (*destructor)(void *));
> > > +int rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_thread_tls_key *key,
> > > + void (*destructor)(void *));
> > >
> >
> > I agree with your argument for TLS confusion.
> >
> > How about rte_thread_key, instead of rte_thread_tls_key. Having both
> > thread and tls seems redundant.
> >
>
> Thanks for the input, make sense, I'll change the name to your
> suggestion.
>
> >
> > Here are some more thoughts... It is meant as a provocation only, not
> a real
> > suggestion:
> >
> > The DPDK API often uses the term "lcore" as the abstraction for
> threads, e.g.
> > rte_per_lcore.h refers to thread local storage using "per_lcore",
> while it is in
> > fact "per thread". Why use another terminology in the API for thread
> keys,
> > instead of sticking with the "lcore" naming tradition, e.g. struct
> > rte_lcore_key?
> >
>
> You're right, but then there are some functions in eal_common_thread.c
> which uses the 'thread' terminology, maybe it's a good idea to rework
> it all to a single accepted term.
>
Agreed. Especially after the introduction of service cores and non-EAL thread support, using "lcore" as a terminology for "thread" seems to be a legacy convention with decreasing relevance.
However, cleaning up that convention would totally break the ABI, and take quite an effort. So I guess it will remain wishful thinking only. :-)
But we can follow your lead and do it right with new ABIs.
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
#include <rte_thread.h>
/* Key of thread specific flow workspace data. */
-static rte_tls_key key_workspace;
+static rte_thread_tls_key key_workspace;
int
mlx5_flow_os_init_workspace_once(void)
@@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ struct mlx5_workspace_thread {
*/
static struct mlx5_workspace_thread *curr;
static struct mlx5_workspace_thread *first;
-rte_tls_key ws_tls_index;
+rte_thread_tls_key ws_tls_index;
static pthread_mutex_t lock_thread_list;
static bool
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ extern "C" {
/**
* TLS key type, an opaque pointer.
*/
-typedef struct eal_tls_key *rte_tls_key;
+typedef struct eal_tls_key *rte_thread_tls_key;
/**
* Set core affinity of the current thread.
@@ -63,7 +63,8 @@ void rte_thread_get_affinity(rte_cpuset_t *cpusetp);
*/
__rte_experimental
-int rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_tls_key *key, void (*destructor)(void *));
+int rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_thread_tls_key *key,
+ void (*destructor)(void *));
/**
* Delete a TLS data key visible to all threads in the process.
@@ -76,7 +77,7 @@ int rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_tls_key *key, void (*destructor)(void *));
* On failure, a negative number and an error number is set in rte_errno.
*/
__rte_experimental
-int rte_thread_tls_key_delete(rte_tls_key key);
+int rte_thread_tls_key_delete(rte_thread_tls_key key);
/**
* Set value bound to the TLS key on behalf of the calling thread.
@@ -84,14 +85,14 @@ int rte_thread_tls_key_delete(rte_tls_key key);
* @param key
* The key allocated by rte_thread_tls_key_create().
* @param value
- * The value bound to the rte_tls_key key for the calling thread.
+ * The value bound to the rte_thread_tls_key key for the calling thread.
*
* @return
* On success, zero.
* On failure, a negative number and an error number is set in rte_errno.
*/
__rte_experimental
-int rte_thread_tls_value_set(rte_tls_key key, const void *value);
+int rte_thread_tls_value_set(rte_thread_tls_key key, const void *value);
/**
* Get value bound to the TLS key on behalf of the calling thread.
@@ -104,7 +105,7 @@ int rte_thread_tls_value_set(rte_tls_key key, const void *value);
* On failure, NULL and an error number is set in rte_errno.
*/
__rte_experimental
-void *rte_thread_tls_value_get(rte_tls_key key);
+void *rte_thread_tls_value_get(rte_thread_tls_key key);
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ struct eal_tls_key {
};
int
-rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_tls_key *key, void (*destructor)(void *))
+rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_thread_tls_key *key, void (*destructor)(void *))
{
int err;
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_tls_key *key, void (*destructor)(void *))
}
int
-rte_thread_tls_key_delete(rte_tls_key key)
+rte_thread_tls_key_delete(rte_thread_tls_key key)
{
int err;
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ rte_thread_tls_key_delete(rte_tls_key key)
}
int
-rte_thread_tls_value_set(rte_tls_key key, const void *value)
+rte_thread_tls_value_set(rte_thread_tls_key key, const void *value)
{
int err;
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ rte_thread_tls_value_set(rte_tls_key key, const void *value)
}
void *
-rte_thread_tls_value_get(rte_tls_key key)
+rte_thread_tls_value_get(rte_thread_tls_key key)
{
if (!key) {
RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "Invalid TLS key.\n");
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ struct eal_tls_key {
};
int
-rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_tls_key *key,
+rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_thread_tls_key *key,
__rte_unused void (*destructor)(void *))
{
*key = malloc(sizeof(**key));
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ rte_thread_tls_key_create(rte_tls_key *key,
}
int
-rte_thread_tls_key_delete(rte_tls_key key)
+rte_thread_tls_key_delete(rte_thread_tls_key key)
{
if (!key) {
RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "Invalid TLS key.\n");
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ rte_thread_tls_key_delete(rte_tls_key key)
}
int
-rte_thread_tls_value_set(rte_tls_key key, const void *value)
+rte_thread_tls_value_set(rte_thread_tls_key key, const void *value)
{
char *p;
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ rte_thread_tls_value_set(rte_tls_key key, const void *value)
}
void *
-rte_thread_tls_value_get(rte_tls_key key)
+rte_thread_tls_value_get(rte_thread_tls_key key)
{
void *output;