On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 09:11:38AM +0200, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
> On 2023-09-22 09:38, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > +int
> > +rte_dispatcher_create(uint8_t id, uint8_t event_dev_id)
> > +{
>
>
> There are two changes I'm considering:
>
> 1) Removing the "id" to identify the dispatcher, replacing it with an
> forward-declared rte_dispatcher struct pointer.
>
> struct rte_dispatcher;
>
> struct rte_dispatcher *
> rte_dispatcher_create(uint8_t event_dev_id);
>
>
> The original reason for using an integer id to identify a dispatcher is to
> make it look like everything else in Eventdev. I find this pattern a little
> awkward to use - in particular the fact the id is application-allocated (and
> thus require coordination between different part of the application in case
> multiple instances are used).
>
> 2) Adding a flags field to the create function "for future use". But since
> the API is experimental, there may not be that much need to attempt to be
> future-proof?
>
I'd add the flags anyway, if you can forsee it potentially being needed.
For something like create it could be useful, and it's not a major overhead
on the user to add an extra "0" to each function call. Just ensure it's
checked for zero inside the initial implementation.
/Bruce
