On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 10/13/16 03:44, Bill Fischofer wrote:
>
>> +
>> +#ifndef ODP_API_DEV_H_
>> +#define ODP_API_DEV_H_
>> +#include <odp/visibility_begin.h>
>> +
>> +#ifdef __cplusplus
>> +extern "C" {
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +#include <odp/api/std_types.h>
>> +
>> +/** @defgroup odp_dev ODP DEVICE
>> + * Operations on devices
>> + * @{
>> + */
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * @typedef odp_dev_t
>> + * ODP Device
>> + */
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * @def ODP_DEV_NAME_LEN
>> + * Maximum device name length in chars
>> + */
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * @def ODP_DEV_ANY
>> + * Any device
>> + */
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * @def ODP_DEV_INVALID
>> + * Invalid device
>> + */
>>
>
> By defining INVALID and ANY will we miss SOME? Maybe on memory allocation
> it makes sense to provide mask of possible numa nodes and
> implementation will choose what is the best?
These two special symbols seem needed. What is the use case for
ODP_DEV_SOME and how would that have a platform-independent meaning?
>
>
> Maxim.
>
