From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/8] ethdev: use locks to protect Rx/Tx callback lists Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:59:55 +0200 Message-ID: <12886124.K2biJ8F8kE@xps13> References: <1465575534-23605-1-git-send-email-reshma.pattan@intel.com> <1465897108-26548-1-git-send-email-reshma.pattan@intel.com> <1465897108-26548-2-git-send-email-reshma.pattan@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Reshma Pattan Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FF1AADBF for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:59:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id k204so6078776wmk.0 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:59:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1465897108-26548-2-git-send-email-reshma.pattan@intel.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2016-06-14 10:38, Reshma Pattan: > Added spinlocks around add/remove logic of Rx and Tx callbacks > to avoid corruption of callback lists in multithreaded context. > > Signed-off-by: Reshma Pattan Why cb->next is not locked in burst functions? Just protecting add/remove but not its usage seems useless.