Hi Panu,

-----Original Message-----
From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Panu Matilainen
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 10:39 AM
To: Andralojc, WojciechX
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] Patch introducing API to read/write Intel Architecture Model Specific Registers (MSR)...

On 01/21/2016 10:18 AM, Wojciech Andralojc wrote:

quoted

Patch reworked.

Signed-off-by: Wojciech Andralojc <redacted>
---
  lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_msr.h |  88 +++++++++++++++++
  lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile             |   1 +
  lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/arch/x86/rte_msr.c   | 116 +++++++++++++++++++++++
  3 files changed, 205 insertions(+)
  create mode 100644 lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/x86/rte_msr.h
  create mode 100644 lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/arch/x86/rte_msr.c

This creates a new arch-specific public API, with rte_msr.h installed as
a public header and implementation in the library (as opposed to
inline), and so the new functions would have to be added to
rte_eal_version.map.

However that is a bit of a problem since it only exists on IA
architectures, so it'd mean dummy entries in the version map for all
other architectures. All the other arch-specific APIs are inline code so
this is the first of its kind.

My thought was:
1. implementation is linux specific (as I know not supposed to work under freebsd).
2. they are not supposed to be used at run-time cide-path, so no need to be inlined.
3. As I understand we plan to  have a library that will use these functions anyway.

About dummy entries in the .map file: if we'll create a 'weak' generic implementation,
that would just return an error - would it solve the issue? 

Konstantin

Jerin Jacob suggested [1] adding these as internal (inline) functions
which to me looks like a more sensible approach, arch-specific APIs tend
to be problematic.

[1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-January/031095.html

	- Panu -