From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] kni: fix kni fifo synchronization
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:42:10 +0100
Message-ID: <7bbec074-5c98-38a5-4dfd-674c0886ea47@intel.com>
References: <1537364560-4124-1-git-send-email-phil.yang@arm.com>
 <1538989906-8349-1-git-send-email-phil.yang@arm.com>
 <1538989906-8349-2-git-send-email-phil.yang@arm.com>
 <20181008145308.0fbc64de@xeon-e3>
 <DB7PR08MB3385FF7AEA923855440CB45BE9E00@DB7PR08MB3385.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <VI1PR08MB3167C4AA31A898D6FAC9C8F48FE00@VI1PR08MB3167.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com" <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
 Ola Liljedahl <Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com>
To: "Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)" <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>,
 "Phil Yang (Arm Technology China)" <Phil.Yang@arm.com>,
 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A45811B6CA
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:42:13 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR08MB3167C4AA31A898D6FAC9C8F48FE00@VI1PR08MB3167.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 10/10/2018 11:06 AM, Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China) wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Phil Yang (Arm Technology China)
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 5:59 PM
>> To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com; Gavin Hu (Arm
>> Technology China) <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
>> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; Ola Liljedahl <Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com>;
>> ferruh.yigit@intel.com
>> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] kni: fix kni fifo synchronization
>>
>> Hi Hemminger,
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 5:53 AM
>>> To: Phil Yang (Arm Technology China) <Phil.Yang@arm.com>
>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com; Gavin Hu (Arm
>>> Technology China) <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
>>> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; Ola Liljedahl <Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com>;
>>> ferruh.yigit@intel.com
>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] kni: fix kni fifo
>>> synchronization
>>>
>>> On Mon,  8 Oct 2018 17:11:44 +0800
>>> Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_kni/rte_kni_fifo.h
>>>> b/lib/librte_kni/rte_kni_fifo.h index ac26a8c..70ac14e 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/librte_kni/rte_kni_fifo.h
>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_kni/rte_kni_fifo.h
>>>> @@ -28,8 +28,9 @@ kni_fifo_put(struct rte_kni_fifo *fifo, void
>>>> **data, unsigned num)  {
>>>>  unsigned i = 0;
>>>>  unsigned fifo_write = fifo->write;
>>>> -unsigned fifo_read = fifo->read;
>>>>  unsigned new_write = fifo_write;
>>>> +rte_smp_rmb();
>>>> +unsigned fifo_read = fifo->read;
>>>>
>>>
>>> The patch makes sense, but this function should be changed to match
>>> kernel code style.
>>> That means no declarations after initial block, and use 'unsigned int'
>>> rather than 'unsigned'
>>>
>>> Also. why is i initialized? Best practice now is to not do gratitious
>>> initialization since it defeats compiler checks for accidental  use of
>> uninitialized variables.
>>>
>>> What makes sense is something like:
>>>
>>> kni_fifo_put(struct rte_kni_fifo *fifo, void **data, unsigned num) {
>>> unsigned int i, fifo_read, fifo_write, new_write;
>>>
>>> fifo_write = fifo->write;
>>> new_write = fifo_write;
>>> rte_smb_rmb();
>>> fifo_read = fifo->read;
>>>
>>> Sorry, blaming you for issues which are inherited from original KNI code.
>>> Maybe someone should run kernel checkpatch (not DPDK checkpatch) on it
>>> and fix those.
>>
>> Thanks for your comment.
>>
>> I think I can submit a new separate patch to fix this historical issue.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Phil Yang
> 
> I advised a separate patch to make this patch to the point and clean.

+1 to separate patch for clean up.