From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 0/3] Thread safe
	rte_vhost_enqueue_burst().
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:09:04 +0100
Message-ID: <9470086.ZYvecjaNVJ@xps13>
References: <1456314438-4021-1-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com>
 <10269895.UfVQWhbqLk@xps13> <20160318080035.GS979@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com>, Huawei Xie <huawei.xie@intel.com>,
 bruce.richardson@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, Dyasly Sergey <s.dyasly@samsung.com>,
 Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Jianbo Liu <jianbo.liu@linaro.org>, Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7190A2BA8
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:10:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id p65so25683459wmp.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160318080035.GS979@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://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: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-03-18 16:00, Yuanhan Liu:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 04:29:32PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-02-24 14:47, Ilya Maximets:
> > > Implementation of rte_vhost_enqueue_burst() based on lockless ring-buffer
> > > algorithm and contains almost all to be thread-safe, but it's not.
> > > 
> > > This set adds required changes.
> > > 
> > > First patch in set is a standalone patch that fixes many times discussed
> > > issue with barriers on different architectures.
> > > 
> > > Second and third adds fixes to make rte_vhost_enqueue_burst thread safe.
> > 
> > My understanding is that we do not want to pollute Rx/Tx with locks.
> > 
> > Huawei, Yuanhan, Bruce, do you confirm?
> 
> Huawei would like to do that, and I'm behind that. Let's do it.

I'm not sure to understand. What do you want to do exactly?

> The question is can we do that in this release? As I replied in another
> thread, I'm wondering we might need do an announce first and do it
> in next release?
> 
> Both are Okay to me; I just want to know which one is more proper.
> 
> Thoughts?