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 84A8D43095; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 12:18:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B85840ED9; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 12:18:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dkmailrelay1.smartsharesystems.com (smartserver.smartsharesystems.com [77.243.40.215]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CF1140395 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 12:18:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smartserver.smartsharesystems.com (smartserver.smartsharesys.local [192.168.4.10]) by dkmailrelay1.smartsharesystems.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA49220634; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 12:18:49 +0200 (CEST) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/2] Release ethdev shared memory on port cleanup Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 12:18:48 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87B1E@smartserver.smartshare.dk> In-Reply-To: <20230818091321.2404089-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PATCH 0/2] Release ethdev shared memory on port cleanup Thread-Index: AdnRtEQIaeiZPjdbTcqa8P/A59G9IAACNNLQ References: <20230818091321.2404089-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Morten_Br=F8rup?= To: "David Marchand" , Cc: 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 > From: David Marchand [mailto:david.marchand@redhat.com] > Sent: Friday, 18 August 2023 11.13 >=20 > 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]). >=20 > 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 ;-). This looks like a better solution to me. Perhaps because I'm not an = ethdev maintainer. ;-) > And let's see what the CI reports... >=20 > 1: https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20230816153439.551501-12- > = bruce.richardson@intel.com/T/#m0e4c23f7be80bbdac076a387f4a2f9094dd07e0a Series-acked-by: Morten Br=F8rup