Re: [PATCH] doc/eal: add signal safety warning

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 15:53:34 -0700
Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 08:23:43AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > The DPDK is not designed to be used from a signal handler.
> > Add a notice in the documentation describing this limitation,
> > similar to Linux signal-safety manual page.
> > 
> > Bugzilla ID: 1030
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> > ---
> >  doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst | 13 +++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst b/doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst
> > index 5f0748fba1c0..36ab4b5ba9b6 100644
> > --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst
> > +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst
> > @@ -732,6 +732,19 @@ controlled with tools like taskset (Linux) or cpuset (FreeBSD),
> >  - with affinity restricted to 2-3, the Control Threads will end up on
> >    CPU 2 (main lcore, which is the default when no CPU is available).
> >  
> > +Signal Safety
> > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > +
> > +The DPDK functions in general can not be safely called from a signal handler.
> > +Most functions are not async-signal-safe because they can acquire locks
> > +and other resources that make them nonrentrant.
> > +
> > +To avoid problems with unsafe functions, can be avoided if required
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> above doesn't quite read right for me, maybe a missing word / needs
> re-wording?

Yes, will reword that