From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Remy Horton <remy.horton@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] lib: add Port Representor library
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:40:27 +0000
Message-ID: <a86b342a-5df8-b88b-4d91-4cd96444221e@intel.com>
References: <20180108143720.7994-1-remy.horton@intel.com>
 <20180108143720.7994-2-remy.horton@intel.com>
 <f83d9741-0924-609b-77d1-ff9a80a43eac@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>, Wenzhuo Lu
 <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
 Declan Doherty <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
 Mohammad Abdul Awal <mohammad.abdul.awal@intel.com>,
 Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6471B1C5
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:40:29 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <f83d9741-0924-609b-77d1-ff9a80a43eac@intel.com>
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 09/01/2018 22:06, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 1/8/2018 2:37 PM, Remy Horton wrote:
[..]

>> +	TAILQ_FOREACH(broker, &broker_list, next) {
> Is there any type of synchronization required to protect the list?

Might be required if an app decides to call the functions from multiple 
lcores, but in that circumstance locking probably should be the 
responsibility of the app.


> There was discussion about having new APIs as EXPERIMENTAL for a release, is it
> agreed on. John, Luca do you remember?

I also remember some discussion along those lines, but not sure what the 
final outcome was.


>> +	void *private_data;
>> +	/**< broker private data */
>
> Is this private_data used?

The PMD-specific port representor support functions use it.