From: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
To: "Mattias Rönnblom" <hofors@lysator.liu.se>, dev@dpdk.org
Cc: "Tyler Retzlaff" <roretzla@microsoft.com>,
<konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru>
Subject: RE: rte_atomic_*_explicit
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:10:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F1A2@smartserver.smartshare.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0e268757-8368-456f-ba2f-10a1969c498f@lysator.liu.se>
> From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hofors@lysator.liu.se]
> Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2024 19.54
>
> Why do rte_stdatomic.h functions have the suffix "_explicit"?
> Especially
> since there aren't any wrappers for the implicit variants.
>
> More to type, more to read.
They have the "_explicit" suffix to make their names similar to those in stdatomic.h.
You might consider their existence somewhat temporary until C11 stdatomics can be fully phased in, so there's another argument for similar names. (This probably does not happen as long as compilers generate slower code for C11 stdatomics than with their atomic built-ins.)
>
> When was this API introduced? Shouldn't it say "experimental"
> somewhere?
They were introduced as part of the migration to C11.
I suppose they were not marked experimental because they replaced something we didn't want anymore (the compiler built-ins for atomics, e.g. __atomic_load_n()). I don't recall if we discussed experimental marking or not.
Reverse paper trail:
https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/log/lib/eal/include/rte_stdatomic.h
https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/1692738045-32363-2-git-send-email-roretzla@linux.microsoft.com/
https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/1692738045-32363-2-git-send-email-roretzla@linux.microsoft.com/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-25 22:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-25 18:53 rte_atomic_*_explicit Mattias Rönnblom
2024-01-25 22:10 ` Morten Brørup [this message]
2024-01-25 22:34 ` rte_atomic_*_explicit Tyler Retzlaff
2024-01-26 1:37 ` rte_atomic_*_explicit Honnappa Nagarahalli
2024-01-26 8:12 ` rte_atomic_*_explicit Mattias Rönnblom
2024-01-26 16:58 ` rte_atomic_*_explicit Honnappa Nagarahalli
2024-01-26 21:03 ` rte_atomic_*_explicit Tyler Retzlaff
2024-01-26 8:07 ` rte_atomic_*_explicit Mattias Rönnblom
2024-01-26 10:52 ` rte_atomic_*_explicit Morten Brørup
2024-01-26 21:35 ` rte_atomic_*_explicit Tyler Retzlaff
2024-01-27 20:34 ` rte_atomic_*_explicit Mattias Rönnblom
2024-01-30 18:36 ` rte_atomic_*_explicit Tyler Retzlaff
2024-01-31 15:52 ` rte_atomic_*_explicit Mattias Rönnblom
2024-01-31 17:34 ` rte_atomic_*_explicit Morten Brørup
2024-01-27 19:08 ` rte_atomic_*_explicit Mattias Rönnblom
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F1A2@smartserver.smartshare.dk \
--to=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=hofors@lysator.liu.se \
--cc=konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru \
--cc=roretzla@microsoft.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).