From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC2CF94; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 03:33:56 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Mar 2019 18:33:55 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,450,1544515200"; d="scan'208";a="149336276" Received: from fmsmsx103.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.201]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2019 18:33:55 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx155.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.71) by FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 18:33:55 -0800 Received: from bgsmsx152.gar.corp.intel.com (10.224.48.50) by FMSMSX155.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 18:33:54 -0800 Received: from bgsmsx101.gar.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.171]) by BGSMSX152.gar.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 08:03:50 +0530 From: "Varghese, Vipin" To: "Carrillo, Erik G" , "rsanford@akamai.com" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "techboard@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] Timer library changes Thread-Index: AQHUkzMMoeGGOQBc+EywnDq5KUui4qX9xqQAgACdxdCAAHfoAIABGZKw Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 02:33:50 +0000 Message-ID: <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D31C589@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> References: <1544205180-31546-1-git-send-email-erik.g.carrillo@intel.com> <1544739996-26011-1-git-send-email-erik.g.carrillo@intel.com> <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D31BFAA@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiOWYxZmEzMGQtY2YyMS00YjhhLWFjNWMtNzM2MTM3Yjc0YjgwIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoiTURjRnBHQ05ySjByNFwvbXZ6SzZxYkp4dnZFWE5pRzl3WnJDWnlkVWJNekM5bUdqSEtYSTRBRksyNGZ4R3hKZGIifQ== dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.400.15 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [10.223.10.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] Timer library changes X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2019 02:33:57 -0000 Hi Gabriel, Thanks for the clarification. > -----Original Message----- > From: Carrillo, Erik G > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:46 PM > To: Varghese, Vipin ; rsanford@akamai.com > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; techboard@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] Timer library changes >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Varghese, Vipin > > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 8:39 PM > > To: Carrillo, Erik G ; rsanford@akamai.com > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; techboard@dpdk.org > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] Timer library changes > > > > Hi Erik, > > > > Apologies if I am reaching out a bit late. Please find my query below > > > > > > > > This enables primary and secondary processes to modify the same > > > > timer list, which enables some multi-process use cases that were > > > > not previously possible; e.g. a secondary process can start a > > > > timer whose expiration is detected in a primary process running a > > > > new flavor of > > > timer_manage(). > > Does this mean the following, primary can detect the timer expire > > primed by secondary. On calling new timer_manage() from primary will > > it invoke call back handler of secondary? If yes, has this been tested > > with shared library too? > > >=20 > Hi Vipin, >=20 > No, with the proposed patch, the callback handler would need to be a fun= ction > pointer valid in the same process that is invoking the new timer_manage()= . >=20 > Thanks, > Gabriel