From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f52.google.com (mail-lf0-f52.google.com [209.85.215.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C13B4C5A8 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:49:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lf0-f52.google.com with SMTP id j7so13065626lfg.1 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:49:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Mh8MMp0XMPMJ3edyEeqqP0B3PMvj1FcQEf1rfKL82eo=; b=buQGtZHP55SkRJtbnE9vYMKU/YTCFvURNcPoULDHEZYhsET2m9qIFZAyxMZKj+Fy30 j3E0/eNaq3o0bIPDmCbqfRy39EztuBYEiIyOF2h4VQH4qb0xPO6cYiS+WK7X2Keal5c2 GrdsSG63hVFeTQcVrFBkutfdpvsjP11W9ieskplSlWCLEPbqqogrgEnvUuXO1GqKBEQV xbAx+XxZv+/s2aaLAM854eCKqo4Ef7a6QYFHiqAZDlBr9KaEl0t7LhkD6BduAxuI+DnC 0ePV55JAPtMLof/i82kCmMT/CyzGxxRLhdX+xCqmjp5eZthj2OAxWN+TosZhLmKtbj8i wUXQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Mh8MMp0XMPMJ3edyEeqqP0B3PMvj1FcQEf1rfKL82eo=; b=HDxk162LnoK6IlWSnCRChG8BAfBORzqynPqneV3UowelnPSHTt14QSr4Vsbzo/AdNn TucFIiiYir555yZgUa+87xLS1z194lyAGiH0fl8CdhG/G07a9LryZCAAov3H3HEbMwO5 SnnhPhvTdF6YPeuVfgmaOm3KOGSFA06C+/V1Dav4iTfcstOEMEj/h1WKVcVefAadxpXG MZp3T+WRafLSc6ZPUdv+mCbMvsiD7/tpciIcYCR3VFrsdPD1k0qGXCMBEk0qrBQ3zR/4 sb4hMS0wWq8NjG1i1jXqLxAy3Y7BCNCqPyqZbL5ThZWsHoqk786lG0WymgNDlxCT+qyi qdBA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tI+AIqVm27l6Axkbc7PhtGfQMsDVzUiCke1MnOUxNLnc5DORU1e727TVurYSyNHJ0Ik X-Received: by 10.194.173.65 with SMTP id bi1mr12601020wjc.160.1465998559153; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m123sm9823951wmm.1.2016.06.15.06.49.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:49:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: "Pattan, Reshma" , dev@dpdk.org Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:49:17 +0200 Message-ID: <6135378.GQTxzoqr34@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B7164D@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1465575534-23605-1-git-send-email-reshma.pattan@intel.com> <2907169.iIEIeOfXh7@xps13> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B7164D@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 1/8] ethdev: use locks to protect Rx/Tx callback lists X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:49:20 -0000 I agree this patch do not bring a new issue. But the current status deserves to be discussed. 2016-06-15 09:54, Ananyev, Konstantin: > It is safe to add/remove RX/TX callbacks while > another thread is doing simultaneously RX/TX burst over same queue. You are probably right, but I don't why it is safe? On which CPU? How can we be sure that read and write of the "next" pointer are atomic?