On 11/1/2026 10:26 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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.
OK, I will try to implement it (avoiding mixing CPU and memory) > >
