在 2023/2/9 1:04, Robin Jarry 写道:
Hi lihuisong,
lihuisong (C), Feb 08, 2023 at 03:24:
static int
lcore_dump_cb(unsigned int lcore_id, void *arg)
{
struct rte_config *cfg = rte_eal_get_configuration();
char cpuset[RTE_CPU_AFFINITY_STR_LEN];
- const char *role;
FILE *f = arg;
int ret;
- switch (cfg->lcore_role[lcore_id]) {
- case ROLE_RTE:
- role = "RTE";
- break;
- case ROLE_SERVICE:
- role = "SERVICE";
- break;
- case ROLE_NON_EAL:
- role = "NON_EAL";
- break;
- default:
- role = "UNKNOWN";
- break;
- }
-
ret = eal_thread_dump_affinity(&lcore_config[lcore_id].cpuset, cpuset,
sizeof(cpuset));
fprintf(f, "lcore %u, socket %u, role %s, cpuset %s%s\n", lcore_id,
- rte_lcore_to_socket_id(lcore_id), role, cpuset,
- ret == 0 ? "" : "...");
+ rte_lcore_to_socket_id(lcore_id),
+ lcore_role_str(cfg->lcore_role[lcore_id]),
+ cpuset, ret == 0 ? "" : "...");
return 0;
}
The above modification doesn't seem to be related to this patch.
Suggest remove or delete it from this patch.
I was asked in an earlier review to factorize this into an helper to
avoid code duplication.
ok, this patch also use lcore_role_str function. please ignore this comment.
+ if (info->lcore_id != lcore_id)
Suggest: info->lcore_id != lcore_id -> lcore_id != info->lcore_id
Here, info->lcore_id is a target and lcore_id is the variable to be
judged, right?
Yeah that looks better. I didn't pay too much attention since this
principle is not well respected in the current code base.
That's not a very good reason.
It's similar to "ret != 0" and "p != NULL" in DPDK coding style.
.
