31/10/2026 02:37, fengchengwen: > On 10/30/2026 8:59 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 30/10/2026 11:52, Konstantin Ananyev: > >>> BTW: SOCKET_ID_ANY seemed need redefined as RTE_SOCKET_ID_ANY, If there > >>> is no > >>> objection, I will make the changes in the next independent patch. > >> > >> Yep, that's probably a good thing to do, and probably 26.11 is a good > >> time to do that. > >> BTW, I think it was discussed before, but I can't remember why we didn't > >> fix it so far. > > > > 1/ We should not break this API easily as it is used a lot. > > If we do the change we need to keep the compat alias for some time. > > > > 2/ The term SOCKET is used in many places instead of NUMA. > > There is a confusion between CPU and memory which deserves to be fixed. > > > > My plan is a 3-patch series: > 1. Add RTE_SOCKET_ID_ANY and deprecation documentation. > 2. Replace all in-tree SOCKET_ID_ANY with RTE_SOCKET_ID_ANY. > 3. Mark SOCKET_ID_ANY with RTE_DEPRECATED after in-tree migration completes, > so warnings only hit out-of-tree users while DPDK itself builds cleanly. > > I will avoid the bigger "socket -> NUMA node" terminology refactor in this > series. > That would be a massive semantic change with large churn, better handled via > separate > RFC later. > > If this plan looks acceptable, I will start the implementation.
My doubt is that while introducing a new API, it may be better to apply it in correct places with correct definition, avoiding mixing CPU and memory.
