From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/11] eal: replace rte_panic instances in
 init sequence
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 15:57:43 +0100
Message-ID: <93afdd1b-b108-9986-5fbe-7d3aacc92ca3@intel.com>
References: <1524117669-25729-1-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com>
 <1524117669-25729-11-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com>
 <d162912b-d8b8-8f6e-ab92-27d205f51baa@intel.com>
 <CAKy9EB3Zzp0wogQpESYC3xnzcSf7PNpyR-Fvr9vSACeAs0DTtA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, "Lu, Wenzhuo"
 <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, "Doherty, Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
 jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, Bruce Richardson
 <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 dev@dpdk.org
To: Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E787B8D28
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:57:46 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKy9EB3Zzp0wogQpESYC3xnzcSf7PNpyR-Fvr9vSACeAs0DTtA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 19-Apr-18 3:48 PM, Arnon Warshavsky wrote:
> Copy on the commit message  and volatile.
> 
> Regarding the new function defunct_and_remain_in_endless_loop ()
> I don't think I can put that in a separate patch without breaking the 
> current patch independence.

How so?

Just leave some panic instances in there for thread-related stuff and 
fix them up in the next patch.

Also, i'm not sure sending threads into an infinite loop on panic is 
such a good idea. You might want to look at Olivier's approach [1] to 
creating threads, using pthread_barriers and pthread_kill/cancel.

This does warrant a separate patch now :)

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly