From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CDD842214; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 18:05:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A5E74028D; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 18:05:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56BA44027B for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 18:05:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCE295C0037; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 12:05:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 31 Aug 2023 12:05:14 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1693497914; x=1693584314; bh=TTh6d+B722egQnFv8/3MfOnw6Cy2DDxbGt1 K0GZa6W8=; b=TGJfJNAOgIPrsmI2izQihsXfQcsPLlLSSQKPDCNVWYhO0LMjsWv mF1DQjbxmUhJvzwVEc/Yk1nUsg5UP1naUEBQ3ACDiWygm0XdBCApxf6oCUHLE9AI d2mdYMT4KcKg6ZUNlt7U3VAStEXseqvNiUfo5HUaamoT1wEikkmLLrmBWqlvxQya fsnbnwosq5pus95yG/9WdqkI4ekG1++LvWUjGPF2iVUvgvxSRn87XWKDIF+5hLL9 wvyXsSoBBSfN1ZYl0r7AibkIGyjy1HGAyo+XdqN180ynVhMSvWJvpBpL5VpoN2ZL Sw6gcyZbbjqDQoFnaQr9vEWnj/atXM/tuiA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1693497914; x=1693584314; bh=TTh6d+B722egQnFv8/3MfOnw6Cy2DDxbGt1 K0GZa6W8=; b=1e9da7+0/CRMpXfKhx5rsaHmAzTvhtSqeMWLPGtlcejJHdXWxeG bDOfV6fCccdLES0WNL3GxO3f2iqIb/5LW17XTIen1NE8kQirGacTRI0RPxrNx7nX zwLOdk8OidWcJX4SaBGXsrQuxBC8csRMDf1geYNcis49FRSOM7zGxmB0xILVdgF/ WkykzAA11PIC4Xo6HQlOa5q6nRtOYfuaoNbmawg8WeIAmKz9HuDR/POyDDNbjZld JytkuSy4VfFwkLzDt6A/Satjho71Rp3m5ZmHujtwh3QW7UF2tLp7hCihi2QmDaFH 8HRrPOi1DZ88Tn7jH84S9BrWpPb/fKQ3OLw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedviedrudegtddgleejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedtjeeiieefhedtfffgvdelteeufeefheeujefgueetfedttdei kefgkeduhedtgfenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfh hrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 12:05:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: David Marchand Cc: dev@dpdk.org, probb@iol.unh.edu, matan@nvidia.com, ferruh.yigit@amd.com, andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru, anatoly.burakov@intel.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Release ethdev shared memory on port cleanup Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 18:05:11 +0200 Message-ID: <3559497.LM0AJKV5NW@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20230821085806.3062613-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> References: <20230818091321.2404089-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20230821085806.3062613-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 21/08/2023 10:58, David Marchand: > This series was triggered after investigating why the > eal_flags_file_prefix_autotest unit test was failing in the case of > statically built binaries [1]). > > For now, I went with a simple (naive) approach and put all accesses to the > shared data under a single lock: ethdev maintainers, it is your turn to > shine and give me reasons why we should keep the locks the way they > were ;-). I think the reasons are: - we wanted to call rte_spinlock_init() - we didn't want to allocate an ethdev lock in EAL memory config How eliminating a lock is making the last patch easier exactly?