From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/11] eal: replace rte_panic instances in
 init sequence
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 18:31:23 +0100
Message-ID: <f10c7dba-6ef8-1ba1-b54c-5701382323ca@redhat.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>
 <93afdd1b-b108-9986-5fbe-7d3aacc92ca3@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
 Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EB27AAB0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 19:31:27 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <93afdd1b-b108-9986-5fbe-7d3aacc92ca3@intel.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 04/19/2018 03:57 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> 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.
> 

I haven't reviewed this one yet, but going into an infinite loop doesn't
seem like the right thing to do.

> This does warrant a separate patch now :)
>