On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 8:23 PM Mattias Rönnblom <mattias.ronnb...@ericsson.com> wrote:
[snip] > +A module may use more than one event handler, for convenience or to > +further decouple sub-modules. However, the dispatcher may impose an > +upper limit of the number handlers. In addition, installing a large > +number of handlers increase dispatcher overhead, although this does > +not nessarily translate to a system-level performance degradation. See necessarily* [snip] > +Event Clustering > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > + > +The dispatcher maintains the order of events destined for the same > +handler. > + > +*Order* here refers to the order in which the events were delivered > +from the event device to the dispatcher (i.e., in the event array > +populated by ``rte_event_dequeue_burst()``), in relation to the order > +in which the dispatcher deliveres these events to the application. > + > +The dispatcher *does not* guarantee to maintain the order of events > +delivered to *different* handlers. > + > +For example, assume that ``MODULE_A_QUEUE_ID`` expands to the value 0, > +and ``MODULE_B_STAGE_0_QUEUE_ID`` expands to the value 1. Then > +consider a scenario where the following events are dequeued from the > +event device (qid is short for event queue id). > + > +.. code-block:: Surprisingly, Ubuntu in GHA sphinx complains about this code-block directive while generating on my Fedora runs fine... FAILED: doc/guides/html /usr/bin/python3 ../buildtools/call-sphinx-build.py /usr/bin/sphinx-build 23.11.0-rc0 /home/runner/work/dpdk/dpdk/doc/guides /home/runner/work/dpdk/dpdk/build/doc/guides -a -W Warning, treated as error: /home/runner/work/dpdk/dpdk/doc/guides/prog_guide/dispatcher_lib.rst:253:Error in "code-block" directive: 1 argument(s) required, 0 supplied. .. code-block:: [e0: qid=1], [e1: qid=1], [e2: qid=0], [e3: qid=1] Looking at https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/usage/restructuredtext/directives.html#directive-code-block, I suspect there is probably a difference in the default settings of sphinx in those Ubuntu containers. This is pseudo-code / close to C, so we could probably mark this block as "C", but "none" works fine too. WDYT? -- David Marchand