10/07/2018 14:56, Gaëtan Rivet: > Hi Thomas, > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 01:40:01PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 05/07/2018 13:48, Gaetan Rivet: > > > Signed-off-by: Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com> > > > > Please justify why you need destructors, by providing a commit log. > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h > > > @@ -111,6 +111,29 @@ static void > > > __attribute__((constructor(RTE_PRIO(prio)), used)) func(void) > > > #define RTE_INIT(func) \ > > > RTE_INIT_PRIO(func, LAST) > > > > > > +/** > > > + * Run after main() with low priority. > > > + * > > > + * @param func > > > + * Destructor function name. > > > + * @param prio > > > + * Priority number must be above 100. > > > + * Lowest number is the last to run. > > > + */ > > > +#define RTE_FINI_PRIO(func, prio) \ > > > +static void __attribute__((destructor(RTE_PRIO(prio)), used)) func(void) > > > > I don't like the name of this macro. > > What about RTE_CLEAN_PRIO? > > > > > > FINI is symmetrical to INIT in referencing the related ELF section. > > RTE_CLEAN presumes that the intended purpose of the function will be to > cleanup resources. As far as we are concerned, this code could send a > signal, dump config info or format / (which would be a pretty advanced > cleanup, granted). > > Sometimes, it could be used to release resources, presumably. > > I'm not a fan of FINI either, but I appreciate the symmetry. > It's pretty neutral about what it does, as its meaning is literally > "The following function will be part of the .fini section". > > Alternatives: > > FINALIZE > UNINIT > > But they have the same issue as RTE_CLEAN, IMO.
OK, you convinced me. And I remember now that you already convinced me earlier with the same argument :) Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>