-----Original Message-----
From: Panu Matilainen [mailto:pmatilai@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 10:06 AM
To: Ananyev, Konstantin; 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 12:51 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:

quoted

Hi Panu,

quoted

-----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.

Speed is not the only interesting attribute of inlining, inlined code
also effectively escapes the library ABI so it does not need versioning
/ exporting.

quoted

3. As I understand we plan to  have a library that will use these functions anyway.

Is this library going to be a generic or specific to Intel CPUs?

As I understand - yes.
It supposed to utilise new Intel chips CAT abilities. 
Wojciech, please correct me if I missed something here.

Also, if there are no other uses for the MSR API at the moment, perhaps
the best place for this code would be within that library anyway?

Sounds good to me.

Konstantin

quoted

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?

Sure it'd solve the issue of dummy entries in .map but people seemed
opposed to having a highly arch-specific API exposed to all architectures.

	- Panu -