From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5492BD7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:59:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48])
 by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2016 00:59:13 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,353,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="68832983"
Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49])
 by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2016 00:59:13 -0700
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:00:35 +0800
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
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>
Message-ID: <20160318080035.GS979@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1456314438-4021-1-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com>
 <10269895.UfVQWhbqLk@xps13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <10269895.UfVQWhbqLk@xps13>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC v3 0/3] Thread safe
	rte_vhost_enqueue_burst().
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 07:59:15 -0000

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. 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?

	--yliu