From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75C4D58EB
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:47:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from was59-1-82-226-113-214.fbx.proxad.net ([82.226.113.214]
 helo=[192.168.0.10]) by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa
 (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80)
 (envelope-from <olivier.matz@6wind.com>)
 id 1W9AjG-0005Yb-A6; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:49:44 +0100
Message-ID: <52EB7267.3060004@6wind.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:52:39 +0100
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20131005 Icedove/17.0.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com>
References: <1390579157-23890-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
 <7F861DC0615E0C47A872E6F3C5FCDDBD0102D11D@BPXM14GP.gisp.nec.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <7F861DC0615E0C47A872E6F3C5FCDDBD0102D11D@BPXM14GP.gisp.nec.co.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [memnic PATCH] pmd: use memory barrier function
 instead of asm volatile
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, 31 Jan 2014 09:47:35 -0000

Hi Hiroshi-san,

On 01/30/2014 12:42 PM, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [memnic PATCH] pmd: use memory barrier function instead of asm volatile
>
> By the way, I was also asked to use rte atomic function
> instead of cmpxchg asm statement.
> My re-submitted version in dpdk-ovs has such a change.
> What do you think?

Yes I agree about this change.

Regards,
Olivier